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 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 fall back to git". Use --git-fallback to > > > ask it to fall back to git. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> > > > > Good idea. > > > > Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > > > > -- PMM > > 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. Well, IMHO, at least the current behaviour if git-fallback seems to be a little bit too easygoing: I already got mails just because I once reviewed a patch in the past and thus got listed with the "Reviewed-by:" tag. I would not expect that behaviour when I run a "get_maintainers" script (it's not called "get_reviewers", is it?). Maybe you could at least remove the "Reviewed-by:" and "Acked-by:" from the --git-fallback option so that it only checks for the SOBs? Thomas