On 06/26/2018 07:04 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 18:52 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>>
>> On 06/26/2018 04:16 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 14:25 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>>>> OSes have additional maintainers that should be cc'd on patches or may
>>>> want to circulate internal patches.
>>>>
>>>> Parse the .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS file. Entries in the file
>>>> can begin with a '+' to indicate the email and list entries should be
>>>> added to the exiting MAINTAINERS output, or a '-' to indicate that the
>>>> entries should override the existing MAINTAINERS file.
>>>>
>>>> Also add a help entry for the .get_maintainers.ignore file.
>>>
>>> I see no reason for this patch to be applied.
>>> Why should it?
>>
>> The kernel has other vendor/OS changes like my patch, for example,
>> 4efb442cc12e
>> ("kernel/panic.c: add TAINT_AUX"). From that commit message
>>
>> Add an auxiliary taint flag to be used by distros and others. This
>> obviates the need to forward-port whatever internal solutions people
>> have in favor of a single flag which they can map arbitrarily to a
>> definition of their pleasing.
>>
>> The same principle should be applied to my patch in that distros no longer
>> would
>> need to forward-port internal solutions similar to this.
>>
>>> Why shouldn't this be in your private repository?
>>
>> If you don't want it I'll carry it forward but that's a loss for both of us,
>> and
>> as pointed out in the above commit, other distros. If you do want to reject
>> the
>> patch please let me know and I'll only submit the "get_maintainer.ignore"
>> help
>> chunk.
>
> I doubt it's a really a loss for others as whatever
> .get_maintainers.<foo> files would likely need to
> be customized for each distro.
That's the point of the patch. Each distro would customize their own internal
.get_maintainers.MAINTAINERS file.
In any case, consider it dropped.
P.
>
> I think the whole thing should be ignored.
>
