Messages in this thread | | | From | Justin Stitt <> | Date | Thu, 5 Oct 2023 12:52:34 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer/MAINTAINERS: confine K content matching to patches |
| |
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 11:42 AM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-10-05 at 11:30 -0700, Justin Stitt wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 11:15 AM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 2023-10-05 at 11:06 -0700, Justin Stitt wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 7:40 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2023-10-04 at 21:21 +0000, Justin Stitt wrote: > > > > > > The current behavior of K: is a tad bit noisy. It matches against the > > > > > > entire contents of files instead of just against the contents of a > > > > > > patch. > > > > > > > > > > > > This means that a patch with a single character change (fixing a typo or > > > > > > whitespace or something) would still to/cc maintainers and lists if the > > > > > > affected file matched against the regex pattern given in K:. For > > > > > > example, if a file has the word "clang" in it then every single patch > > > > > > touching that file will to/cc Nick, Nathan and some lists. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's change this behavior to only content match against patches > > > > > > (subjects, message, diff) as this is what most people expect the > > > > > > behavior already is. Most users of "K:" would prefer patch-only content > > > > > > matching. If this is not the case let's add a new matching type as > > > > > > proposed in [1]. > > > > > > > > > > I'm glad to know you are coming around to my suggestion. > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe the file-based keyword matching should _not_ be > > > > > removed and the option should be added for it like I suggested. > > > > > > > > Having a command line flag allowing get_maintainer.pl > > > > users to decide the behavior of K: is weird to me. If I'm a maintainer setting > > > > my K: in MAINTAINERS I want some sort of consistent behavior. Some > > > > patches will start hitting mailing list that DO have keywords in the patch > > > > and others, confusingly, not. > > > > > > Not true. > > > > > > If a patch contains a keyword match, get_maintainers will _always_ > > > show the K: keyword maintainers unless --nokeywords is specified > > > on the command line. > > > > ... > > > > > > > > If a file contains a keyword match, it'll only show the K: > > > keyword if --keywords-in-file is set. > > > > Right, what I'm saying is a patch can arrive in a maintainer's inbox > > wherein the patch itself has no mention of the keyword (if > > get_maintainer user opted for --keywords-in-file). Just trying to > > avoid some cases of the question: "Why is this in my inbox?" > > Because the script user specifically asked for it. > > > > > To note, we get some speed-up here as pattern matching a patch that > > > > touches lots of files would result in searching all of them in their > > > > entirety. Just removing this behavior _might_ have a measurable > > > > speed-up for patch series touching dozens of files. > > > > > > Again, not true. > > > > > > Patches do _not_ scan the original modified files for keyword matches. > > > Only the patch itself is scanned. That's the current behavior as well. > > > > > > > Feel like I'm missing something here. How is K: matching keywords in > > files without reading them. > > > > If my patch touches 10 files then all 10 of those files are scanned for > > K: matches right? > > Nope. > > Understand the patches are the input to get_maintainer and not > just files. > > If a patch is fed to get_maintainer then any files modified by > the patch are _not_ scanned. > > Only the patch _content_ is used for keyword matches. >
Got it. I'll roll your patch into a v3.
Thanks Justin
| |