Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Sep 2022 13:21:36 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters should be mailed | From | Bryan O'Donoghue <> |
| |
On 28/09/2022 13:02, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 28.09.22 13:48, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >> On 28/09/2022 05:34, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >>> On 28.09.22 02:30, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >>>> Recently when submitting a yaml change I found that I had omitted the >>>> maintainer whose tree the change needed to go through. >>>> >>>> The reason for that is the path in MAINTAINERS is marked as Supported >>>> not >>>> Maintained. Reading MAINTAINERS we see quote: >>>> >>>> Supported: Someone is actually paid to look after this. >>>> Maintained: Someone actually looks after it. >>>> >>>> The current submitting-patches.rst only says to mail maintainers >>>> though not >>>> supporters. When we run scripts/get_maintainer.pl anybody who is >>>> denoted a >>>> paid maintainer will appear as a supporter. >>>> >>>> Let's add some text to the submitting-patches.rst to indicate that >>>> supporters should similarly be mailed so that you can't do as I did and >>>> mail every maintainer get_maintainer.pl tells you to, without actually >>>> mailing the one supporter you need to. >> [...] >>> Which leads to two other question: Are there any other places that might >>> benefit from such a clarification? Or would it be even make sense to >>> change the format of MAINTAINERS to avoid the problem in the first >>> place? Maybe something like "Maintained(v)" (Someone volunteered to look >>> after it in spare hours.) and "Maintained(p)" (Someone is actually paid >>> to look after this.). Ahh, no, that doesn't look good. But you get the >>> idea. >> >> We could update get_maintainer to print out something else >> such as > > I really like the idea of just changing get_maintainer, but also... > >> scripts/get_maintainer.pl >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml >> >> Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org> (maintainer:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT) >> Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> (maintainer:ARM/QUALCOMM >> SUPPORT) >> Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org> (reviewer:ARM/QUALCOMM >> SUPPORT) >> Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org> (maintainer-supporter:MULTIFUNCTION DEVICES >> (MFD)) >> >> or say >> >> scripts/get_maintainer.pl >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml >> Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org> (maintainer:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT) >> Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> (maintainer:ARM/QUALCOMM >> SUPPORT) >> Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org> (reviewer:ARM/QUALCOMM >> SUPPORT) >> Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org> (supporting-maintainer:MULTIFUNCTION DEVICES >> (MFD)) >> >> it would be less churn but, I still think we would need to update the >> documentation to be very explicit that "supporting-maintainer or >> maintainer" needs to be emailed with your patch so that sufficiently >> talented idiots such as myself, know who to mail. >> >> Although thinking about it we would be introducing yet another term >> "supporting-maintainer" to which people would say "what is that" > > ...agree with this. > >> Feels a little less confusing to me to leave supporter as-is and just >> document expectations for patch submission better. > > Hmm, how about this: > > scripts/get_maintainer.pl > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml > Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org> (maintainer[supported]:MULTIFUNCTION DEVICES > (MFD)) > Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org> (maintainer[volunteer]:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT) > Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> > (maintainer[volunteer]:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT) > Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org> (reviewer:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT) > > Not totally sure about this myself. And there is a risk that any such > change might break scripts that rely on the current approach used by > scripts/get_maintainer.pl :-/
So it feels to me like the right thing to do is change get_maintainer and accompanying documentation but, I'll wait to hear back from Jonathan.
--- bod
| |