Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:29:14PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 02:22:41PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
[...]
My patch to get_maintainers.pl triggered a whole thread, while
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 08:39:59AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:29:14PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 02:22:41PM +0200, Markus Armbruster
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:34:46PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com writes:
On 10/20/2014 04:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
What do you want to happen in this case?
Won't this cause even more patches to fall
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 09:01:24AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:34:46PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com writes:
On 10/20/2014 04:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
What do you
On 10/22/2014 09:12 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
$ scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f util/cutils.c
Luiz Capitulino lcapitul...@redhat.com (commit_signer:1/2=50%)
Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com (commit_signer:1/2=50%)
Alexey Kardashevskiy a...@ozlabs.ru (commit_signer:1/2=50%)
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:10:58AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:01:43 +0300
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 08:39:59AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:03:53AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 09:01:24AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:34:46PM +0200, Markus Armbruster
On 10/22/14 04:29, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:03:53AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 09:01:24AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 17:15:48 +0300
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 20 October 2014 10:19, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Contributors rely on this script to find maintainers to copy. The
script falls
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 20 October 2014 10:19, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Contributors rely on this script to find maintainers to copy. The
script falls back to git when no exact
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:19:52PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 20 October 2014 15:15, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 20 October 2014 10:19, Markus Armbruster
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:31:12AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:19:52PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 20 October 2014 15:15, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter
On Mo, 2014-10-20 at 20:38 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 10/20/2014 04:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
What do you want to happen in this case?
Won't this cause even more patches to fall to the floor?
The benefit seems marginal, the risk high.
I agree with Michael.
Can we detect
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 01:09:19PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
On Mo, 2014-10-20 at 20:38 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 10/20/2014 04:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
What do you want to happen in this case?
Won't this cause even more patches to fall to the floor?
The benefit seems
Hi,
How about making get_maintainer.pl --git-fallback actually do what it
says? Right now git it *not* used as fallback, it goes to git log
unconditionally, even if there are hits in MAINTAINERS ...
It does?
How do you reproduce this behaviour?
$ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 01:23:49PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Hi,
How about making get_maintainer.pl --git-fallback actually do what it
says? Right now git it *not* used as fallback, it goes to git log
unconditionally, even if there are hits in MAINTAINERS ...
It does?
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:31:12AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:19:52PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 20 October 2014 15:15, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 02:22:41PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:31:12AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:19:52PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 02:22:41PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:31:12AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com writes:
On 10/20/2014 04:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
What do you want to happen in this case?
Won't this cause even more patches to fall to the floor?
The benefit seems marginal, the risk high.
I agree with Michael.
Can we detect if
On 10/21/2014 03:34 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com writes:
On 10/20/2014 04:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
What do you want to happen in this case?
Won't this cause even more patches to fall to the floor?
The benefit seems marginal, the risk high.
I
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 20 October 2014 10:19, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Contributors rely on this script to find maintainers to copy. The
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com writes:
On 10/20/2014 04:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
What do you want to happen in this case?
Won't this cause even more patches to fall to the floor?
The benefit seems marginal, the risk high.
I
Kirill Batuzov batuz...@ispras.ru writes:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 20 October 2014 10:19, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Contributors rely on
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:29:14PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 02:22:41PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:31:12AM +0200, Markus Armbruster
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:34:46PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com writes:
On 10/20/2014 04:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
What do you want to happen in this case?
Won't this cause even more patches to fall to the floor?
The benefit seems marginal,
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 04:15:08PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
We do have too may files lacking maintainers. See
Subject: MAINTAINERS leaves too many files uncovered
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 11:19:44 +0200
Message-ID: 87mw8rumhb@blackfin.pond.sub.org
Contributors rely on this script to find maintainers to copy. The
script falls back to git when no exact MAINTAINERS pattern matches.
When that happens, recent contributors get copied, which tends not be
particularly useful. Some contributors find it even annoying.
Flip the default to don't
I am happy with this so:
Reviewed-by: Don Slutz dsl...@verizon.com
-Don Slutz
On 10/20/14 05:19, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Contributors rely on this script to find maintainers to copy. The
script falls back to git when no exact MAINTAINERS pattern matches.
When that happens, recent
On 20 October 2014 10:19, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Contributors rely on this script to find maintainers to copy. The
script falls back to git when no exact MAINTAINERS pattern matches.
When that happens, recent contributors get copied, which tends not be
particularly useful.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 20 October 2014 10:19, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Contributors rely on this script to find maintainers to copy. The
script falls back to git when no exact MAINTAINERS pattern matches.
When that happens,
On 20 October 2014 15:15, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 20 October 2014 10:19, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Contributors rely on this script to find maintainers to copy. The
script falls back to git
On 10/20/2014 03:19 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Contributors rely on this script to find maintainers to copy. The
script falls back to git when no exact MAINTAINERS pattern matches.
When that happens, recent contributors get copied, which tends not be
particularly useful. Some contributors
On 10/20/2014 04:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
What do you want to happen in this case?
Won't this cause even more patches to fall to the floor?
The benefit seems marginal, the risk high.
I agree with Michael.
Can we detect if get_maintainer.pl is invoked as a cccmd, and in this
case
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:19:52PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 20 October 2014 15:15, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 20 October 2014 10:19, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Contributors rely on this
On 20 October 2014 21:10, Don Slutz dsl...@verizon.com wrote:
Here is a possible patch (based on a xen change). It adds the special
supporter:THE REST
Which is listed at the end of MAINTAINERS. I included a quick guess...
+THE REST
+M: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
+M: Peter Maydell
36 matches
Mail list logo
