Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Rene Herman]

On 08/16/2007 09:00 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:


Git or no git, I think a file that can be viewed with less,
edited with regular editor and processed with sed/perl/grep
tools is the way to go.  I do not think adding 600+ patches to
the single MAINTAINERS list is workable in the longer term, as
it would become the single file many subsystem people need to
update and is asking for merge conflicts, but I think a file
with known name (say, "CcMe.txt") sprinkled in relevant
subdirectories, perhaps with the same format originally
suggested for MAINTAINERS, would make a lot more sense.

That would give people who work with tarballs and patches, or a
subsystem managed with something other than git (one of the most
important one is quilt), the equal access to the necessary data.


That is ofcourse an argument but I believe a bit of a non-argument at the 
same time in practice.


There's really not much point in pretending that non-git users are still 
first class citizens anyway; Linus' own suggestion of using git-blame would 
tie things to git as well, as do for example frequent requests to bisect a 
problem. I moreover feel there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, given 
that there's nothing wrong with git.


It's the kernel's source code management tool, is included out of the box in 
most distributions nowadays and is GPLd meaning that the tool (itself) won't 
keep anyone from exporting data from it and importing it into something else 
if someone cares to. Also, I never managed to stay un-annoyed at source code 
management tools long enough to understand why I wanted to use them but have 
been using git for months now so as far as I am concerned, it appears to 
even be a good tool.


But, well, anyways, I did look at a git repo a bit but will unfortunately 
not be able to follow up the proposal with actual (good) code in a sensible 
timeframe, let alone "quickly", which means I was hoping others would agree. 
I believe these properties make for an elegant setup with many possible uses 
including the maintainers information, but if you disagree I guess I'm going 
to shelve it...



Even with git, it is my understanding that kernel community
works largely on patches exchanged over e-mails, between people
who do use git and people who do not.  You would want to have
something you can easily transfer over e-mail in the patch
form.

We _could_ invent a new "patches to properties" git diff output
format that "git apply" can understand to propagate that
information


Yes, not unlike the current git move "meta-diffs" ...

but that approach is making it less interoperable with others, and you 
need to demonstrate the benefit far outweighs that.  I do not see it for 
this particular application.


There may be places for "properties" that would be useful to git, but I 
do not think the "find whom to send patches to" is one of them.


The important reason for wiring this into git directly would be keeping the 
meta-data in sync with the data it refers to in an automated fashion. With 
manual intervention, there's much more opportunity for things to grow stale.


In practice, it may not be a huge problem. It certainly is with the current 
MAINTAINERS file but if one does finer-grained data around the tree, that 
will probably help.


It's also not a now or never thing fortunately. If git does ever grow these 
properties, the issue can be revisited, perhaps at that time both with the 
experience of what the finer-grained in-tree solution did not solve and even 
fewer people around that care about not making git even more of an intrinsic 
part of development.


Rene.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 19:13 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> Sorry, not a git developer, so the paths are wrong.
> This seems to work:

Sorry.  Patch reversed too.

--- /usr/local/bin/git-send-email   2007-05-01 11:59:14.0 -0700
+++ /home/joe/bin/git-send-email.pl 2007-08-16 19:25:53.0 -0700
@@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ Options:
--cc   Specify an initial "Cc:" list for the entire series
   of emails.
 
+   --cc-cmd   Specify a command to execute per file which adds
+  per file specific cc address entries
+
--bcc  Specify a list of email addresses that should be Bcc:
  on all the emails.
 
@@ -140,7 +143,7 @@ my (@to,@cc,@initial_cc,@bcclist,@xh,
 
 # Behavior modification variables
 my ($chain_reply_to, $quiet, $suppress_from, $no_signed_off_cc,
-   $dry_run) = (1, 0, 0, 0, 0);
+   $dry_run, $cc_cmd) = (1, 0, 0, 0, 0, "");
 my $smtp_server;
 my $envelope_sender;
 
@@ -173,6 +176,7 @@ my $rc = GetOptions("from=s" => \$from,
"subject=s" => \$initial_subject,
"to=s" => [EMAIL PROTECTED],
"cc=s" => [EMAIL PROTECTED],
+   "cc-cmd=s" => \$cc_cmd,
"bcc=s" => [EMAIL PROTECTED],
"chain-reply-to!" => \$chain_reply_to,
"smtp-server=s" => \$smtp_server,
@@ -607,6 +611,16 @@ foreach my $t (@files) {
}
}
close F;
+
+   if (${cc_cmd} ne "") {
+   my $output = `${cc_cmd} $t`;
+   my @lines = split("\n", $output);
+   foreach my $c (@lines) {
+   push @cc, $c;
+   printf("(sob) Adding cc: %s from cc-cmd: '%s'\n", $c, $t) 
unless $quiet;
+   }
+   }
+
if (defined $author_not_sender) {
$author_not_sender = unquote_rfc2047($author_not_sender);
$message = "From: $author_not_sender\n\n$message";


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 18:31 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>On the other hand, git-send-email _is_ all about sending it
>out, and it needs to know who your patch should reach.  I
>think it makes sense to have one script that, given a set of
>paths that are affected, gives a list of potentially
>interested people (that is "Finding" part -- and I see there
>are 600+ patches to implement this on the list), and a new
>option to git-send-email to (1) inspect the patch to see what
>paths are affected, and (2) call that "Find" script to figure
>out whom to send it to, and probably asking for confirmation.

Sorry, not a git developer, so the paths are wrong.
This seems to work:

Example:

git-send-email \
   --cc-cmd "perl scripts/get_maintainers.pl -non -multiline" foo.diff

--- git-send-email.pl   2007-08-16 19:06:07.0 -0700
+++ /usr/local/bin/git-send-email   2007-05-01 11:59:14.0 -0700
@@ -47,9 +47,6 @@ Options:
--cc   Specify an initial "Cc:" list for the entire series
   of emails.
 
-   --cc-cmd   Specify a command to execute per file which adds
-  per file specific cc address entries
-
--bcc  Specify a list of email addresses that should be Bcc:
  on all the emails.
 
@@ -143,7 +140,7 @@ my (@to,@cc,@initial_cc,@bcclist,@xh,
 
 # Behavior modification variables
 my ($chain_reply_to, $quiet, $suppress_from, $no_signed_off_cc,
-   $dry_run, $cc_cmd) = (1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
+   $dry_run) = (1, 0, 0, 0, 0);
 my $smtp_server;
 my $envelope_sender;
 
@@ -176,7 +173,6 @@ my $rc = GetOptions("from=s" => \$from,
"subject=s" => \$initial_subject,
"to=s" => [EMAIL PROTECTED],
"cc=s" => [EMAIL PROTECTED],
-   "cc-cmd=s" => \$cc_cmd,
"bcc=s" => [EMAIL PROTECTED],
"chain-reply-to!" => \$chain_reply_to,
"smtp-server=s" => \$smtp_server,
@@ -611,16 +607,6 @@ foreach my $t (@files) {
}
}
close F;
-
-   if (${cc_cmd} ne "") {
-   my $output = `${cc_cmd} $t`;
-   my @lines = split("\n", $output);
-   foreach my $c (@lines) {
-   push @cc, $c;
-   printf("(sob) Adding cc: %s from cc-cmd: '%s'\n", $c, $t) 
unless $quiet;
-   }
-   }
-
if (defined $author_not_sender) {
$author_not_sender = unquote_rfc2047($author_not_sender);
$message = "From: $author_not_sender\n\n$message";


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 11:40 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Do a script like this:
> 
>   #!/bin/sh
>   git log --since=6.months.ago -- "$@" |
>   grep -i '^[-a-z]*by:.*@' |
>   sort | uniq -c |
>   sort -r -n | head
> (Maybe you want to add a
>   grep -v '\(Linus Torvalds\)\|\(Andrew Morton\)'
> to avoid seeing the normal chain too much, but hey, we probably want to 
> know too. Anyway - the script can certainly be tweaked, the point is 
> really just that the git tree _already_ contains the relevant 
> information).

So, here's the same get_maintainer.pl with the git
addition.  Seems to work well in combination with MAINTAINERS.

diff --git a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
new file mode 100755
index 000..eb3f023
--- /dev/null
+++ b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
@@ -0,0 +1,351 @@
+#!/usr/bin/perl -w
+# (c) 2007, Joe Perches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+#   created from checkpatch.pl
+#
+# Print the contact information for the maintainers
+# of the files modified in a patch
+#
+# usage: perl scripts/get_maintainers.pl 
+#
+# Licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL License version 2
+
+use strict;
+
+my $P = $0;
+$P =~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/@@g;
+
+my $V = '0.06';
+
+use Getopt::Long qw(:config no_auto_abbrev);
+
+my $tree = "./";
+my $email_maintainer = 1;
+my $email_usename = 1;
+my $email_list = 1;
+my $email_subscriber_list = 0;
+my $email_separator = ", ";
+my $email_git = 1;
+my $email_git_chief_penguins = 0;
+my $email_multiline = 0;
+my %saw;
+
+my $chief_penguins = "(Linus Torvalds|Andrew Morton)";
+
+GetOptions(
+  'tree=s' => \$tree,
+  'git!' => $email_git,
+  'git-chief-penguins' => \$email_git_chief_penguins,
+  'm!' => \$email_maintainer,
+  'n!' => \$email_usename,
+  'l!' => \$email_list,
+  's!' => \$email_subscriber_list,
+  'multiline!' => \$email_multiline,
+  'separator=s' => \$email_separator,
+  ) or exit;
+
+my $exit = 0;
+
+if ($#ARGV < 0 ||
+($email_maintainer == 0
+ && $email_list == 0
+ && $email_subscriber_list == 0
+ && $email_git == 0)) {
+print "usage: $P [options] patchfile\n";
+print "version: $V\n";
+print "  --tree [path] => linux kernel source path\n";
+print "  --git => include recent git \*-by: signers\n";
+print "  --git_chief_penguins => include ${chief_penguins}\n";
+print "  --m => include maintainer(s) if any\n";
+print "  --n => include name 'Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'\n";
+print "  --l => include list(s) if any\n";
+print "  --s => include subscriber only list(s) if any\n";
+print "  --separator [, ] => separator for multiple addresses on 1 line\n";
+print "  --multiline => print 1 address per line\n";
+print "Default: [--g --m --l --separator \", \"]\n";
+print "Be sure to select something...\n";
+exit(1);
+}
+
+if ($tree && !top_of_kernel_tree($tree)) {
+if (${tree} ne "") {
+   print "'${tree}' ";
+} else {
+   print "The current directory ";
+}
+print "doesn't appear to be a linux kernel source tree\n";
+exit(2);
+}
+
+## Read MAINTAINERS for type/value pairs
+
+my @typevalue = ();
+open(MAINT, "<${tree}MAINTAINERS") || die "$P: Can't open 
${tree}MAINTAINERS\n";
+while () {
+if (m/^(\C):\s*(.*)/) {
+   my $type = $1;
+   my $value = $2;
+
+   ##Filename pattern matching
+   if ($type eq "F" || $type eq "X") {
+   $value =~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED];   ##Convert . to 
\.
+   $value =~ s/\*/\.\*/g;   ##Convert * to .*
+   }
+   push(@typevalue, "$type:$value");
+} elsif (!/^(\s)*$/) {
+   push(@typevalue, $_);
+}
+}
+close(MAINT);
+
+## Find the patched filenames
+
+my @patchedfiles = ();
+open(PATCH, "<$ARGV[0]") or die "Can't open $ARGV[0]\n";
+while () {
+if (m/^\+\+\+\s+(\S+)/) {
+   my $file = $1;
+   $file =~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/]*/@@;
+   $file =~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]@@;
+   push(@patchedfiles, $file);
+}
+}
+close(PATCH);
+
+# Sort and uniq patchedfiles
+
+undef %saw;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] = sort @patchedfiles;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] = grep(!$saw{$_}++, @patchedfiles);
+
+# Find responsible parties
+
+my @email_to = ();
+foreach (@patchedfiles) {
+my $patchedfile = $_;
+my $exclude = 0;
+
+#Git
+
+recent_git_signoffs($patchedfile);
+
+#Do not match excluded file patterns
+
+foreach (@typevalue) {
+   if (m/^(\C):(.*)/) {
+   my $type = $1;
+   my $value = $2;
+   if ($type eq 'X') {
+   if (file_match_pattern($patchedfile, $value)) {
+   $exclude = 1;
+   }
+   }
+   }
+}
+
+if ($exclude == 0) {
+   my $tvi = 0;
+   foreach (@typevalue) {
+   if (m/^(\C):(.*)/) {
+   my $type = $1;
+   my $value = $2;
+   if ($type eq 'F') {
+   if (file_match_patter

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Junio C Hamano]

Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Am looking at it but am not so sure that's a very good idea. I guess
> it'd be largely okay-ish to require the repo to be on a filesystem
> that supports EAs for this feature to work, but keeping the attributes
> intact over file system operations seems not all that easy
> (yet). Having not used EAs before I may be missing something but my
> version of "cp" for example (GNU coreutils 6.9) appears to not copy
> them. Nor do they seem to survive a trip through GNU tar 1.16.1. EAs
> appear to not be very useful unless every single tool supports them --
> a repo should be resistant against simple operations like that.
>
> Googling around, I see subversion already has this and calls the
> meta-data "properties" (svn propset/get and friends). It uses a few
> properties itself, such as the svn:executable property (which I saw is
> also the only permission bit git keeps) and svn:ignore, which serves
> the same role as the .gitignore files for git. Both those would fit
> into this scheme nicely for git as well, if git were to do something
> similar and reserve for example the "git.*" namespace for internal use.
>
> Junio (and others), do you have an opinion on this?

Please step back a bit and imagine a world in which there was no
git.  IOW, you kernel folks switched to tarballs and patches 20
months ago.  It is a far superiour solution compared to CVS and
SVN, so it ought to work, right ;-)?

Now, would you implement the "whom would I send my patches to"
with EAs?

I would hope not.

Git or no git, I think a file that can be viewed with less,
edited with regular editor and processed with sed/perl/grep
tools is the way to go.  I do not think adding 600+ patches to
the single MAINTAINERS list is workable in the longer term, as
it would become the single file many subsystem people need to
update and is asking for merge conflicts, but I think a file
with known name (say, "CcMe.txt") sprinkled in relevant
subdirectories, perhaps with the same format originally
suggested for MAINTAINERS, would make a lot more sense.

That would give people who work with tarballs and patches, or a
subsystem managed with something other than git (one of the most
important one is quilt), the equal access to the necessary data.

Even with git, it is my understanding that kernel community
works largely on patches exchanged over e-mails, between people
who do use git and people who do not.  You would want to have
something you can easily transfer over e-mail in the patch
form.

We _could_ invent a new "patches to properties" git diff output
format that "git apply" can understand to propagate that
information, but that approach is making it less interoperable
with others, and you need to demonstrate the benefit far
outweighs that.  I do not see it for this particular
application.

There may be places for "properties" that would be useful to
git, but I do not think the "find whom to send patches to" is
one of them.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Rene Herman]

On 08/16/2007 05:40 PM, Al Viro wrote:


On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 12:58:19PM +0200, Rene Herman wrote:


The git-blame thing as sketched before by Linus would never be able to 
point out mailing lists, or general lists of "interested parties" for 
example, but these properties can do anything...


No, they can not.  "I'm interested in drivers/foo/bar.c fixes" is not
an earth-shattering event and it sure as hell does not create a new revision
of the tree.


That's true. Okay, it can't do those general lists of interested parties.

Rene.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Al Viro]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 12:58:19PM +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
 
> Googling around, I see subversion already has this and calls the meta-data 
> "properties" (svn propset/get and friends). It uses a few properties 
> itself, such as the svn:executable property (which I saw is also the only 
> permission bit git keeps) and svn:ignore, which serves the same role as the 
> .gitignore files for git. Both those would fit into this scheme nicely for 
> git as well, if git were to do something similar and reserve for example 
> the "git.*" namespace for internal use.

"svn does it" is usually an indication of a bad idea, but anyway - it's
fundamentally wrong in this case, simply because "$FOO is interested
in $BAR" is a property of $FOO, not of $BAR.

> The git-blame thing as sketched before by Linus would never be able to 
> point out mailing lists, or general lists of "interested parties" for 
> example, but these properties can do anything...

No, they can not.  "I'm interested in drivers/foo/bar.c fixes" is not
an earth-shattering event and it sure as hell does not create a new revision
of the tree.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Rene Herman]

On 08/16/2007 01:26 PM, Salikh Zakirov wrote:

Please don't drop CCs.


Rene Herman wrote:

Perhaps that immediately suggests an implementation to someone already
familiar with git internals?


perhaps http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/gitattributes.html
and http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-check-attr.html
can help you?


No, thanks, saw them, but .gitattributes is in fact in the same category as 
.gitignore, which would _be_ a property.


If you do this stuff in files scattered around the tree, updating and moving 
stuff becomes a pain -- the tool would need to go edit files.


Rene.



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Salikh Zakirov]

Rene Herman wrote:
> Perhaps that immediately suggests an implementation to someone already
> familiar with git internals?

perhaps http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/gitattributes.html
and http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-check-attr.html
can help you?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Rene Herman]

On 08/16/2007 12:58 PM, Rene Herman wrote:


On 08/15/2007 03:52 PM, Kyle Moffett wrote:


If you were going to do that I'd just suggest making git aware of the 
"user.*" extended attributes and having it save those into the git 
repo along with the permission data.


Am looking at it but am not so sure that's a very good idea. I guess 
it'd be largely okay-ish to require the repo to be on a filesystem that 
supports EAs for this feature to work, but keeping the attributes intact 
over file system operations seems not all that easy (yet). Having not 
used EAs before I may be missing something but my version of "cp" for 
example (GNU coreutils 6.9) appears to not copy them. Nor do they seem 
to survive a trip through GNU tar 1.16.1. EAs appear to not be very 
useful unless every single tool supports them -- a repo should be 
resistant against simple operations like that.


Googling around, I see subversion already has this and calls the 
meta-data "properties" (svn propset/get and friends). It uses a few 
properties itself, such as the svn:executable property (which I saw is 
also the only permission bit git keeps) and svn:ignore, which serves the 
same role as the .gitignore files for git. Both those would fit into 
this scheme nicely for git as well, if git were to do something similar 
and reserve for example the "git.*" namespace for internal use.


Junio (and others), do you have an opinion on this? If these properties 
are versioned themselves such as in svn I believe it's a decidedly 
non-trivial addition (and I'm a complete git newbie) but to me, they 
look incredibly useful, both for the original "maintainers" properties 
(and anyone else one would want to come up with such as summary 
properties and author/license stuff) and even for git internal reasons 
such as sketched above.


The git-blame thing as sketched before by Linus would never be able to 
point out mailing lists, or general lists of "interested parties" for 
example, but these properties can do anything...


The svn implemention is that a single property is free-form text. As such, I 
guess a property would be just another file, although one that only lives in 
the index and is linked from the file/directory it is a property of.


Perhaps that immediately suggests an implementation to someone already 
familiar with git internals?


Rene.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Rene Herman]

On 08/15/2007 03:52 PM, Kyle Moffett wrote:


On Aug 15, 2007, at 09:39:44, Rene Herman wrote:

On 08/15/2007 03:33 PM, Satyam Sharma wrote:

[ git info --maintainer ]

I'd really _love_ a tool that does all that what you've proposed 
above!  But why does it have to be "git-info" or anything in the 
git(7) suite for that matter? This sounds like a job for a different 
specialised tool,  long with ".metatags" kind of files dispersed in 
the source tree.


To automatically move (and delete) the meta-data alongside the files 
themselves is a reason.


More generally -- shouldn't it? This is about source management (well, 
maybe more about project management, but...) and the source code 
management tool looks to be the right place for that. The different 
parts of git are somewhat/fairly stand-alone as is, no?


If you were going to do that I'd just suggest making git aware of the 
"user.*" extended attributes and having it save those into the git repo 
along with the permission data.


Am looking at it but am not so sure that's a very good idea. I guess it'd be 
largely okay-ish to require the repo to be on a filesystem that supports EAs 
for this feature to work, but keeping the attributes intact over file system 
operations seems not all that easy (yet). Having not used EAs before I may 
be missing something but my version of "cp" for example (GNU coreutils 6.9) 
appears to not copy them. Nor do they seem to survive a trip through GNU tar 
1.16.1. EAs appear to not be very useful unless every single tool supports 
them -- a repo should be resistant against simple operations like that.


Googling around, I see subversion already has this and calls the meta-data 
"properties" (svn propset/get and friends). It uses a few properties itself, 
such as the svn:executable property (which I saw is also the only permission 
bit git keeps) and svn:ignore, which serves the same role as the .gitignore 
files for git. Both those would fit into this scheme nicely for git as well, 
if git were to do something similar and reserve for example the "git.*" 
namespace for internal use.


Junio (and others), do you have an opinion on this? If these properties are 
versioned themselves such as in svn I believe it's a decidedly non-trivial 
addition (and I'm a complete git newbie) but to me, they look incredibly 
useful, both for the original "maintainers" properties (and anyone else one 
would want to come up with such as summary properties and author/license 
stuff) and even for git internal reasons such as sketched above.


The git-blame thing as sketched before by Linus would never be able to point 
out mailing lists, or general lists of "interested parties" for example, but 
these properties can do anything...


Rene.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Al Viro]

On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 09:37:45PM +0200, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> > I'm not suggesting something like [EMAIL PROTECTED] with something
> > like majordomo allowing to add yourself to those,
> 
> Why not

You'd need to implement serious anti-spam measures for that.  Besides,
cross-postings between random sets of lists would become a nightmare
pretty soon.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Krzysztof Halasa]

Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I'm not suggesting something like [EMAIL PROTECTED] with something
> like majordomo allowing to add yourself to those,

Why not

> but something less
> extreme in that direction might be worth thinking about...  Hell,
> even simple
> $ finger fs/minix/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with majordomo-like interface for adding yourself to such lists
> might solve most of those problems...

I think so.

And you would be able to add yourself even if you're merely
interested in something, not a maintainer.

However I think the mailing lists could do better. Duplicate
suppression, among other things.

And they could eventually supersede the subsystem mailing lists
we use today. Just use [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Joe Perches]

On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 13:44 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 08/15/2007 11:39 AM, Stefan Richter wrote:
> > Note, maintainer contacts
> >   - should be available to patch submitters and
> >   - must be available to *problem reporters*
> > without having to have git and a .git repo.
> That "must" seems rather strong. But those few non-developer users that 
> could care are served by a MAINTAINERS file generated into releases.

Good idea for scripts to help kernel bug reporters.
REPORTING-BUGS is underutilized as a guide.

I think Bug reporting is a separate issue from patch CC'ing.
I'd rather have MAINTAINERS disappear altogether.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Ray Lee]

On 8/15/07, Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >   #!/bin/sh
> >   git log --since=6.months.ago -- "$@" |
> >   grep -i '^[-a-z]*by:.*@' |
> >   sort | uniq -c |
> >   sort -r -n | head
> >
> > and it gives you a rather good picture of who is involved with a
> > particular subdirectory or file.
>
> No, it doesn't.  The subscribers of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> are
> not listed in patch logs.

Then maybe they should be added into the patch logs. A CC: line isn't
that big of a deal, and also shows who got notified.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Kyle Moffett]

On Aug 15, 2007, at 09:39:44, Rene Herman wrote:

On 08/15/2007 03:33 PM, Satyam Sharma wrote:

[ git info --maintainer ]

I'd really _love_ a tool that does all that what you've proposed  
above!  But why does it have to be "git-info" or anything in the  
git(7) suite for that matter? This sounds like a job for a  
different specialised tool,  long with ".metatags" kind of files  
dispersed in the source tree.


To automatically move (and delete) the meta-data alongside the  
files themselves is a reason.


More generally -- shouldn't it? This is about source management  
(well, maybe more about project management, but...) and the source  
code management tool looks to be the right place for that. The  
different parts of git are somewhat/fairly stand-alone as is, no?


If you were going to do that I'd just suggest making git aware of the  
"user.*" extended attributes and having it save those into the git  
repo along with the permission data.


Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Rene Herman]

On 08/15/2007 03:33 PM, Satyam Sharma wrote:

[ git info --maintainer ]


I'd really _love_ a tool that does all that what you've proposed above!

But why does it have to be "git-info" or anything in the git(7) suite for
that matter? This sounds like a job for a different specialised tool, 
along with ".metatags" kind of files dispersed in the source tree.


To automatically move (and delete) the meta-data alongside the files 
themselves is a reason.


More generally -- shouldn't it? This is about source management (well, maybe 
more about project management, but...) and the source code management tool 
looks to be the right place for that. The different parts of git are 
somewhat/fairly stand-alone as is, no?


Rene.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Satyam Sharma]

Hi Rene,


On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Rene Herman wrote:

> It mostly is just about that it seems. However, this would not also allow the
> other information currently in the MAINTAINERS file to be queried in similar
> ways.
> 
> Git could grow a generic file meta data implementation through the use of
> tags, sort of like tags on multimedia files although while with multimedia
> files the tags are in fact stored as a file header, here you'd keep them just
> in git. Any project using git would be free to define its own set of info tags
> and you'd supply them to git simply as a list of
> 
> =
> 
> pairs:
> 
> $ git info --add drivers/ide/ide-cd.c < CC="Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> EOF
> 
> Or as a more expansive example, with the tags set on a directory (and the
> output shown this time):
> 
> $ git info drivers/infiniband/
> CC="Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
> CC="Sean Hefty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
> CC="Hal Rosenstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Considering some people may want to differentiate between "those who want
to be Cc'ed for patches on subsystem X" and "those who are maintainer(s)
of subsystem X", I think another "P=" kind of tag might also be useful
here.

> W=http://www.openib.org/
> T=git kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/roland/infiniband.git
> 
> $ git info --type="W" drivers/infiniband/
> http://www.openib.org/
> 
> The project can link the actual tags such as CC, W and T to --options for the
> "info" command in the git configuration file for the tree (and/or just define
> a few upfront I guess) making it look nicer:
> 
> $ git info --cc drivers/infiniband/
> "Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
> "Sean Hefty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
> "Hal Rosenstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> $ git info --website drivers/infiniband/
> http://www.openib.org/
> 
> $ git info --tree drivers/infiniband/
> git kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/roland/infiniband.git
> 
> Extra: when you have such an implementation, you can use it for other purposes
> as well such as the summary Documentation/ files want for the 00-INDEX files:
> 
> $ git info --summary Documentation/BUG-HUNTING
> brute force method of doing binary search of patches to find bug.
> 
> And importantly -- when queuried for a file that itself doesn't have the
> requested info tag:
> 
> $ git info --cc drivers/infiniband/core/addr.c
> 
> git looks for the tag on the drivers/infiniband/core/ directory next, and then
> on drivers/infiniband/, where it finds it. linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org would
> be the final fallback, being set on the project root.
> 
> I'd really like something like this. As long as projects are both free to use
> and not use them and free to define their own set of tags I believe this would
> work very nicely.
> 
> Once you have these tags, you can basically use them for anything.

I'd really _love_ a tool that does all that what you've proposed above!

But why does it have to be "git-info" or anything in the git(7) suite for
that matter? This sounds like a job for a different specialised tool,
along with ".metatags" kind of files dispersed in the source tree.


Satyam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Rene Herman]

On 08/15/2007 11:39 AM, Stefan Richter wrote:


Note, maintainer contacts
  - should be available to patch submitters and
  - must be available to *problem reporters*
without having to have git and a .git repo.


That "must" seems rather strong. But those few non-developer users that 
could care are served by a MAINTAINERS file generated into releases.


Rene.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Stefan Richter]

Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 18:31 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>On the other hand, git-send-email _is_ all about sending it
>>out, and it needs to know who your patch should reach.  I
>>think it makes sense to have one script that,
[...]

> Yes please.
> 
> The LK MAINTAINERS file is ugly.
> 
> Might there be a git portable way to "find"?

Note, maintainer contacts
  - should be available to patch submitters and
  - must be available to *problem reporters*
without having to have git and a .git repo.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=-=-=== =--- -
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Stefan Richter]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
>   #!/bin/sh
>   git log --since=6.months.ago -- "$@" |
>   grep -i '^[-a-z]*by:.*@' |
>   sort | uniq -c |
>   sort -r -n | head
> 
> and it gives you a rather good picture of who is involved with a 
> particular subdirectory or file.

No, it doesn't.  The subscribers of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> are
not listed in patch logs.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=-=-=== =--- -
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Rene Herman]

On 08/15/2007 07:25 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:


Joe Perches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:



Rene Herman had an idea about using some git
metadata that might be useful.  The completely
external data approach suggested by Al Viro 
might be OK too in that it wouldn't tie listeners

to git requiring more content in git metadata.


The reason I found Linus's suggestion desirable is because it
fundamentally does not require git to track any metadata.  If
the commits are in git, then his script would let you gather the
data, but otherwise you should be able to do the same by
grepping patches.  Obviously you would need to filter by paths,
looking at the diffstat, but the approach does _not_ tie users
to git.


I believe that wouldn't be much of a problem really. Users in this context 
are people submitting patches and most people who do will, could and maybe 
even should be running git these days -- git is very good, GPLd and the 
Linux source code managament system.


But for occasional contributors that don't, a MAINTAINERS file much like the 
current could also be generated into releases; it's just that the source 
would live as file/directory metadata inside git.


Still like the notion of a generic file/directory metadata implementation 
inside git, through that "=" system that I suggested. Wouldn't 
be intrinsically tied to Linux or anything, with any project being free to 
invent their own tags and has heaps of possible uses, from the current 
MAINTAINERS info, through summary information, author/licese information, 
anything goes...


Rene.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Junio C Hamano]

Joe Perches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Yes please.

Huh?

> Rene Herman had an idea about using some git
> metadata that might be useful.  The completely
> external data approach suggested by Al Viro 
> might be OK too in that it wouldn't tie listeners
> to git requiring more content in git metadata.

The reason I found Linus's suggestion desirable is because it
fundamentally does not require git to track any metadata.  If
the commits are in git, then his script would let you gather the
data, but otherwise you should be able to do the same by
grepping patches.  Obviously you would need to filter by paths,
looking at the diffstat, but the approach does _not_ tie users
to git.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 18:31 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>On the other hand, git-send-email _is_ all about sending it
>out, and it needs to know who your patch should reach.  I
>think it makes sense to have one script that, given a set of
>paths that are affected, gives a list of potentially
>interested people (that is "Finding" part -- and I see there
>are 600+ patches to implement this on the list), and a new
>option to git-send-email to (1) inspect the patch to see what
>paths are affected, and (2) call that "Find" script to figure
>out whom to send it to, and probably asking for confirmation.

Yes please.

The LK MAINTAINERS file is ugly.

Might there be a git portable way to "find"?

Rene Herman had an idea about using some git
metadata that might be useful.  The completely
external data approach suggested by Al Viro 
might be OK too in that it wouldn't tie listeners
to git requiring more content in git metadata.

Perhaps both via something like:

--external-find "cmd @filelist"

Thanks,  Joe


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Rene Herman]

On 08/14/2007 09:33 PM, Al Viro wrote:


FWIW, I suspect that we are looking at that from the wrong POV.  If
that's about "who ought to be Cc'd on the issues dealing with ", why does it have to be tied to "who is maintainer for
"?

I'm not suggesting something like [EMAIL PROTECTED] with something
like majordomo allowing to add yourself to those, but something less
extreme in that direction might be worth thinking about...  Hell,
even simple
$ finger fs/minix/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
with majordomo-like interface for adding yourself to such lists
might solve most of those problems...


It mostly is just about that it seems. However, this would not also allow 
the other information currently in the MAINTAINERS file to be queried in 
similar ways.


Git could grow a generic file meta data implementation through the use of 
tags, sort of like tags on multimedia files although while with multimedia 
files the tags are in fact stored as a file header, here you'd keep them 
just in git. Any project using git would be free to define its own set of 
info tags and you'd supply them to git simply as a list of


=

pairs:

$ git info --add drivers/ide/ide-cd.c "
"Sean Hefty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
"Hal Rosenstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

$ git info --website drivers/infiniband/
http://www.openib.org/

$ git info --tree drivers/infiniband/
git kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/roland/infiniband.git

Extra: when you have such an implementation, you can use it for other 
purposes as well such as the summary Documentation/ files want for the 
00-INDEX files:


$ git info --summary Documentation/BUG-HUNTING
brute force method of doing binary search of patches to find bug.

And importantly -- when queuried for a file that itself doesn't have the 
requested info tag:


$ git info --cc drivers/infiniband/core/addr.c

git looks for the tag on the drivers/infiniband/core/ directory next, and 
then on drivers/infiniband/, where it finds it. linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 
would be the final fallback, being set on the project root.


I'd really like something like this. As long as projects are both free to 
use and not use them and free to define their own set of tags I believe this 
would work very nicely.


Once you have these tags, you can basically use them for anything.

Rene.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Richard Knutsson]

Linus Torvalds wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Joe Perches wrote:

  

On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 20:03 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:

"git info --maintainer drivers/ide/ide-cd.c" or some such would say "Alan 
Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>".
  

Perhaps maintainer(s), approver(s), listener(s)?

I think something like this should be a git-goal.
What do the git-wranglers think?



The thing is, if you have git, you can basically already do this.

Do a script like this:

#!/bin/sh
git log --since=6.months.ago -- "$@" |
grep -i '^[-a-z]*by:.*@' |
  

sed -r "s/^.*by: \"?([^\"]+)\"?/\1/" |

sort | uniq -c |
sort -r -n | head

and it gives you a rather good picture of who is involved with a 
particular subdirectory or file.


  
Like the script! Especially since it reveled --since=6.month.ago and 
uniq to me.
Just wondering, why order them in the acked, signed and tested? Other 
then removing those, the added 'sed' also fix the  vs 
""-"problem". + adding '-i' to uniq should help the result too, right?


Now a simple "diffstat -p1 -l  | xargs " 
makes the day. Too bad, as Joe pointed out, it does not include relevant ML.


cheers
Richard Knutsson

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Junio C Hamano]

Joe Perches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 17:53 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
>> It isn't about MODULE_FOO() tags, it is about tagging /source/ files 
>> to help with putting CCs on patch submissals.
>> If we want to link source file foo.c and the 
>> MAINTAINERS information, we have 3 options:
>> 1. MAINTAINERS --> foo.c
>> 2. foo.c --> MAINTAINERS
>> 3. foo.c <--> some 3rd file <--> MAINTAINERS
>
> I added [EMAIL PROTECTED] and Junio Hamano
>
> Another possibility is improving git to allow
> some sort of "declaration of interest" in bits
> of projects.
>
> That would allow options like:
>
> o  git-format-patch to include CCs
> o  git-commit and git-branch to notify or
>  take some other action
>
> etc...

There are things git can help, and other things git does not
have any business with.

1. Finding out who the potentially interested parties are.

   Linus already gave a script to grep *-by: lines from commit
   messages.  I find this is probably be the best option, as it
   follows "yesterday's weather".  People who had dealt with the
   area are the ones who are likely to be interested.

   git records who did the work (author) and who did the
   integration to git-based patch flow (committer).  It does not
   structurally track intermediate people who touched the patch
   on e-mail, but Signed-off-by: and Acked-by: (and sometimes I
   see Cc: as well in the commit messages) are accepted social
   convention in the kernel community, and taking advantage of
   that is a good idea.


2. Making it easier to send your patches to these people.

   There are three possible places to add Signed-off-by: and
   friends in the commit messages you would mail out:

   - When you create your own commit, or commit a patch that
 came to you via e-mail.  The commit object in your tree
 will carry them --- you can send format-patch output as-is
 to Linus or Andrew and you are done.

   - When you run format-patch; your commit will not have extra
 Cc: or "interested parties" information, you will use the
 result of 1. and insert it near your own Signed-off-by: to
 the format-patch output.

   - When you send format-patch output, via git-send-email
 perhaps.

   To make the result useful for "yesterday's weather" approach,
   I think it would be the best to do the first.  After all,
   your commit may propagate via "git pull" not over e-mail, and
   no postprocessing approach would work in such a case.

   The second one is my least favorite.  format-patch output is
   designed to record author/committer (i.e. origin) and not to
   record recipient at all.  "Who's interested in this" does not
   simply belong there.

   On the other hand, git-send-email _is_ all about sending it
   out, and it needs to know who your patch should reach.  I
   think it makes sense to have one script that, given a set of
   paths that are affected, gives a list of potentially
   interested people (that is "Finding" part -- and I see there
   are 600+ patches to implement this on the list), and a new
   option to git-send-email to (1) inspect the patch to see what
   paths are affected, and (2) call that "Find" script to figure
   out whom to send it to, and probably asking for confirmation.




-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 20:33 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> FWIW, I suspect that we are looking at that from the wrong POV.  If
> that's about "who ought to be Cc'd on the issues dealing with  of pathnames>", why does it have to be tied to "who is maintainer for
> "?

Right, it doesn't have to.
I think a notification list would be just fine.

> I'm not suggesting something like [EMAIL PROTECTED] with something
> like majordomo allowing to add yourself to those, but something less
> extreme in that direction might be worth thinking about...
> Hell, even simple
> $ finger fs/minix/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with majordomo-like interface for adding yourself to such lists
> might solve most of those problems...

Might solve all of my wants for this problem.

cheers, Joe

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Al Viro]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 11:40:09AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> A much *better* picture than some manually maintained thing, in fact, 
> because it tells you who really does the work, and which way patches go...
> 
> (Maybe you want to add a
> 
>   grep -v '\(Linus Torvalds\)\|\(Andrew Morton\)'
> 
> to avoid seeing the normal chain too much, but hey, we probably want to 
> know too. Anyway - the script can certainly be tweaked, the point is 
> really just that the git tree _already_ contains the relevant 
> information).

FWIW, I suspect that we are looking at that from the wrong POV.  If
that's about "who ought to be Cc'd on the issues dealing with ", why does it have to be tied to "who is maintainer for
"?

I'm not suggesting something like [EMAIL PROTECTED] with something
like majordomo allowing to add yourself to those, but something less
extreme in that direction might be worth thinking about...  Hell,
even simple
$ finger fs/minix/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
with majordomo-like interface for adding yourself to such lists
might solve most of those problems...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 11:40 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Anyway - the script can certainly be tweaked, the point is 
> really just that the git tree _already_ contains the relevant 
> information).

I believe it's not specific enough.
Things like email lists would never show up.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Joe Perches wrote:

> On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 20:03 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
> > "git info --maintainer drivers/ide/ide-cd.c" or some such would say "Alan 
> > Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>".
> 
> Perhaps maintainer(s), approver(s), listener(s)?
> 
> I think something like this should be a git-goal.
> What do the git-wranglers think?

The thing is, if you have git, you can basically already do this.

Do a script like this:

#!/bin/sh
git log --since=6.months.ago -- "$@" |
grep -i '^[-a-z]*by:.*@' |
sort | uniq -c |
sort -r -n | head

and it gives you a rather good picture of who is involved with a 
particular subdirectory or file.

A much *better* picture than some manually maintained thing, in fact, 
because it tells you who really does the work, and which way patches go...

(Maybe you want to add a

grep -v '\(Linus Torvalds\)\|\(Andrew Morton\)'

to avoid seeing the normal chain too much, but hey, we probably want to 
know too. Anyway - the script can certainly be tweaked, the point is 
really just that the git tree _already_ contains the relevant 
information).

Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Rene Herman]

On 08/14/2007 08:28 PM, Joe Perches wrote:


On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 20:03 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
"git info --maintainer drivers/ide/ide-cd.c" or some such would say "Alan 
Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>".


Perhaps maintainer(s), approver(s), listener(s)?

I think something like this should be a git-goal.
What do the git-wranglers think?


I agree. If this thing has source management, let's use it.


Until a time in the future when a system like that exists,
I suggest keeping MAINTAINERS up-to-date with

F:  pattern

It'll be useful as git-set-maintainer seeds at least.


Yes. Seeing as how it's already been useful in updating the information it 
would be a shame to throw what you already did away. Don't underestimate how 
fast git-wranglers can implement stuff if they agree though... :-)



sticking  headers on every source file isn't nice anyway --
it's meta-information and the SCM can maintain it.


It's like looking at $CVS$ keywords.  Unsightly.


Again agree.

Rene.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 20:03 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
> "git info --maintainer drivers/ide/ide-cd.c" or some such would say "Alan 
> Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>".

Perhaps maintainer(s), approver(s), listener(s)?

I think something like this should be a git-goal.
What do the git-wranglers think?

Until a time in the future when a system like that exists,
I suggest keeping MAINTAINERS up-to-date with

F:  pattern

It'll be useful as git-set-maintainer seeds at least.

> sticking  headers on every source file isn't nice anyway --
> it's meta-information and the SCM can maintain it.

It's like looking at $CVS$ keywords.  Unsightly.

cheers,  Joe

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Rene Herman]

On 08/14/2007 07:00 PM, Joe Perches wrote:


On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 17:53 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:


It isn't about MODULE_FOO() tags, it is about tagging /source/ files 
to help with putting CCs on patch submissals.
If we want to link source file foo.c and the 
MAINTAINERS information, we have 3 options:

1. MAINTAINERS --> foo.c
2. foo.c --> MAINTAINERS
3. foo.c <--> some 3rd file <--> MAINTAINERS


I added [EMAIL PROTECTED] and Junio Hamano


Well, yes, I agree -- going through GIT seems to be the only really workable 
solution.


That is, instead of (case 2, you snipped it) having a backlink to the 
MAINTAINERS file in a header inside the source GIT would maintain this 
backlink -- and at that point, you can basically forego the MAINTAINERS file 
completely other than as something GIT can generate and just regard all of 
it meta-information (you may want to generate MAINTAINERS for releases but 
making GIT the source is the idea).


"git info --maintainer drivers/ide/ide-cd.c" or some such would say "Alan 
Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>".


There are more possibilities for this kind of meta information. git info 
--author, git info --license, git info --whatever. Given that it's intended 
for developers, needing GIT should not get in the way but there's always the 
generated MAINTAINERS file in releases as well.


It would ofcourse automatically stay up to date through deleting and moving 
of files. You'd probably want to devise a way to enable a submitter to also 
automatically provide meta-information upon addition of files. This can be 
done in the same way as a "Signed-off-by". Just tags in a submit email.


This should probably turn out to be the way things work yes. The paths in 
the MAINTAINERS file grow stale, source headers might also and sticking 
headers on every source file isn't nice anyway -- it's meta-information and 
the SCM can maintain it.


Rene.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 17:53 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
> It isn't about MODULE_FOO() tags, it is about tagging /source/ files 
> to help with putting CCs on patch submissals.
> If we want to link source file foo.c and the 
> MAINTAINERS information, we have 3 options:
> 1. MAINTAINERS --> foo.c
> 2. foo.c --> MAINTAINERS
> 3. foo.c <--> some 3rd file <--> MAINTAINERS

I added [EMAIL PROTECTED] and Junio Hamano

Another possibility is improving git to allow
some sort of "declaration of interest" in bits
of projects.

That would allow options like:

o  git-format-patch to include CCs
o  git-commit and git-branch to notify or
 take some other action

etc...

It's generic, applies to multiple projects, etc.

I don't care which mechanism is used, I just want
to be able to CC appropriate people and lists on
changes to their areas of interest without wasting
time searching all over the place per file changed.

The LK MAINTAINERS file is weakly specified, but
I'm not a git-geek, nor do I want to be one, so
MAINTAINERS was the file I could easiest change
with minimal impact to LK sources.

The get_maintainer script is trivial,
I'm not wedded to it at all.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Rene Herman]

On 08/14/2007 11:20 AM, Alan Cox wrote:

MODULE_MAINTAINER() was discussed a while ago but embedding information into 
the binary has the problem you can't ever change deployed systems, meaning 
it lags by design. If a maintainer changes, people would still be using the 
information from their old binaries, meaning a replaced maintainer might get 
contacted for potentially years still (and the new one not).


And as was pointed out at the time, the people whining about that were
talking out of the wrong equipment. The supplier of the code can no more
or less easily change the binary as the matching source tree once its been
shipped. In fact its probably easier to change the binaries as the
sources will be left on CD.


That's just not a complete argument if one accepts that users can be people 
without _any_ source tree lying around. There's no reason this user would 
believe that any source tree, matching or not, would provide him with beter 
information than the information modinfo just spat at him. The only thing 
that helps is not have modinfo spit _any_ contact information at him so he 
knows to look elsewhere.


And even more importantly ...

PUHLEASE PUHLEASE don't dirty this discussion with binary tags in the first 
place! It isn't about MODULE_FOO() tags, it is about tagging /source/ files 
to help with putting CCs on patch submissals. People who submit patches sort 
of by definition have a current source tree lying around, and do not need to 
grab information from any binaries. As such, putting it in a comment inside 
the source is all that's relevant here, not anything to do with binaries.


So, let's talk source. If we want to link source file foo.c and the 
MAINTAINERS information, we have 3 options:


1. MAINTAINERS --> foo.c

This is what Joe Perches' current 550 piece proposal does. Although I can 
hardly wait for version 2 of the patchset, high potential to turn into an 
incomplete obsolete mess upon adding, removing and moving files around.


2. foo.c --> MAINTAINERS

Putting a copy of the MAINTAINERS entry in a header in a every single source 
file (Joe already nicely provided us with the paths to script something like 
that) works but considering that single "maintenance units" might consist of 
many source files, people might not bother to keep them all updated and in 
sync and really, they shouldn't need to.


Sticking a single backlink to a MAINTAINERS file entry at the top of a 
source file might work:


--- a/drivers/ide/ide-cd.c
+++ b/drivers/ide/ide-cd.c
@@ ... @@
+/*
+ * MAINTAINERS: IDE/ATAPI CDROM DRIVER
+ */

[ ... ]

3. foo.c <--> some 3rd file <--> MAINTAINERS

Just for completeness and trying to make sure I'm not inventing an or/or but 
I don't see any use in this linkage, so it's 1 or 2 it seems.


Note, perhaps after we have a MAINTAINERS source tag, we can discuss whether 
or not it could in fact be a MODULE_MAINTAINER() binary tag, but that's then 
about something else at that point...


Rene.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[John W. Linville]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 04:22:05PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 06:19:26PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 16:37 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 10:42 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > > The maintainer info should be in the source file itself! That's the only
> > > > reasonable way to keep it updated; now I'm all for having it machine
> > > > parsable so that tools can use it, but it still really should be in the
> > > > code itself, not in some central file that will always just go out of
> > > > data, and will be a huge source of needless patch conflicts.
> > > 
> > > If the problem is to do with people failing to update the MAINTAINERS
> > > file, why would moving the same data into 20 or 30 source files motivate
> > > them to keep it up to date? As far as I can see, that would just serve
> > > to multiply the amount of stale data...
> > 
> > if each .c file has a MODULE_MAINTAINER() tag... 
> > 
> > people tend to update .c files a lot better than way off-the-side other
> > files.
> 
> The move of netdev to vger would have required updating
> approx. 1300 C files...

Wouldn't it be individuals listed in MODULE_MAINTAINER?

Even if it is the mailing list, is this the kind of thing that sed
is perfect to handle?

John
-- 
John W. Linville
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 16:22 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > people tend to update .c files a lot better than way off-the-side other
> > files.
> 
> The move of netdev to vger would have required updating
> approx. 1300 C files...


and your point is?
This is an easily sed-able operation with a single git commit. 
BIG DEAL... NOT.

-- 
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via 
http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Arjan van de Ven]

> > the other angle is this: if someone becomes the new maintainer, does he
> > really want to "maintain" all the really old versions of the code out
> > there that predate him, or does he only want to go forward? 
> >...
> 
> What about cases like maintainers using company email addresses and 
> changing company?
> 
> E.g. Jens is still block layer maintainer but the @suse address he used 
> for years suddenly no longer existed after he left Suse.

if you're using a current enough kernel, no big deal. If you use an old
one and it bounces, then you go look further. The biggest deal for this
feature is to find out mechanically whom to CC patches to; if you're
doing patches, you better use a recent enough kernel annyway. 
(and if you're doing patches against something ancient, you more than
likely have a modern tree somewhere for lookaside)
-- 
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via 
http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Adrian Bunk]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 06:47:20AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 10:20 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > MODULE_MAINTAINER() was discussed a while ago but embedding information 
> > > into 
> > > the binary has the problem you can't ever change deployed systems, 
> > > meaning 
> > > it lags by design. If a maintainer changes, people would still be using 
> > > the 
> > > information from their old binaries, meaning a replaced maintainer might 
> > > get 
> > > contacted for potentially years still (and the new one not).
> > 
> > And as was pointed out at the time, the people whining about that were
> > talking out of the wrong equipment. The supplier of the code can no more
> > or less easily change the binary as the matching source tree once its been
> > shipped. In fact its probably easier to change the binaries as the
> > sources will be left on CD.
> > 
> > The only non-stale source is git-blame.
> 
> the other angle is this: if someone becomes the new maintainer, does he
> really want to "maintain" all the really old versions of the code out
> there that predate him, or does he only want to go forward? 
>...

What about cases like maintainers using company email addresses and 
changing company?

E.g. Jens is still block layer maintainer but the @suse address he used 
for years suddenly no longer existed after he left Suse.

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Adrian Bunk]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 06:19:26PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 16:37 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 10:42 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > The maintainer info should be in the source file itself! That's the only
> > > reasonable way to keep it updated; now I'm all for having it machine
> > > parsable so that tools can use it, but it still really should be in the
> > > code itself, not in some central file that will always just go out of
> > > data, and will be a huge source of needless patch conflicts.
> > 
> > If the problem is to do with people failing to update the MAINTAINERS
> > file, why would moving the same data into 20 or 30 source files motivate
> > them to keep it up to date? As far as I can see, that would just serve
> > to multiply the amount of stale data...
> 
> if each .c file has a MODULE_MAINTAINER() tag... 
> 
> people tend to update .c files a lot better than way off-the-side other
> files.

The move of netdev to vger would have required updating
approx. 1300 C files...

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 10:20 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > MODULE_MAINTAINER() was discussed a while ago but embedding information 
> > into 
> > the binary has the problem you can't ever change deployed systems, meaning 
> > it lags by design. If a maintainer changes, people would still be using the 
> > information from their old binaries, meaning a replaced maintainer might 
> > get 
> > contacted for potentially years still (and the new one not).
> 
> And as was pointed out at the time, the people whining about that were
> talking out of the wrong equipment. The supplier of the code can no more
> or less easily change the binary as the matching source tree once its been
> shipped. In fact its probably easier to change the binaries as the
> sources will be left on CD.
> 
> The only non-stale source is git-blame.

the other angle is this: if someone becomes the new maintainer, does he
really want to "maintain" all the really old versions of the code out
there that predate him, or does he only want to go forward? 
He wouldn't know anything about, say, the 2.4.21 version of the driver
anyway... nor would it be reasonable to expect him to.

I can an option where distros just set all the maintainer data to
themselves for long lived enterprise products... since effectively they
are the de-facto maintainers of those codebases.

-- 
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via 
http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Alan Cox]

> MODULE_MAINTAINER() was discussed a while ago but embedding information into 
> the binary has the problem you can't ever change deployed systems, meaning 
> it lags by design. If a maintainer changes, people would still be using the 
> information from their old binaries, meaning a replaced maintainer might get 
> contacted for potentially years still (and the new one not).

And as was pointed out at the time, the people whining about that were
talking out of the wrong equipment. The supplier of the code can no more
or less easily change the binary as the matching source tree once its been
shipped. In fact its probably easier to change the binaries as the
sources will be left on CD.

The only non-stale source is git-blame.

Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Manu Abraham]

On 8/13/07, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 19:33 +0200, Mariusz Kozlowski wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> >   I don't recall discusion about this so here are my 3 cents:
> >
> >   I like the idea.
>
> I don't actually. It shows a central MAINTAINERS file is the wrong
> approach; just that 500+ patches to the same file were needed shows
> that.
>
> The maintainer info should be in the source file itself! That's the only
> reasonable way to keep it updated; now I'm all for having it machine
> parsable so that tools can use it, but it still really should be in the
> code itself, not in some central file that will always just go out of
> data, and will be a huge source of needless patch conflicts.


ACK. Very much agree. In fact MAINTAINERS is a wrong thing altogether.

For example, code/drivers under a subsystem, might not be easily add
"able" to a central file in some cases as it is scattered around.

Maintainer info in the source is the right way to go.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Rene Herman]

On 08/14/2007 03:51 AM, Rene Herman wrote:

MODULE_MAINTAINER() was discussed a while ago but embedding information 
into the binary has the problem you can't ever change deployed systems, 
meaning it lags by design. If a maintainer changes, people would still 
be using the information from their old binaries, meaning a replaced 
maintainer might get contacted for potentially years still (and the new 
one not).


(you could avoid that by placing not a name/address in the maintainer 
tag but a pointer to somewhere else but at that point this gets to be 
about solving something else).


Keeping it in the source alone is fine. C files could just embed their 
MAINTAINERS entry as a header:


/*
 * P: Maintainer
 * M: Mail patches to
 * L: Mailing list that is relevant to this area
 * W: Web-page with status/info
 * T: SCM tree type and location.  Type is one of: git, hg, quilt.
 * S: Status, one of the following:
 */

And probably adding fields:

 * I: Info/Summary (for index files and the like)
 * A: Author
 * G: License

and such. Yes, while we're at it, we can pick better letters or full 
word tags ;-)


Okay, and if a single "maintenance unit" consists of many files, this gets 
to be too much yes. But they _could_ just grow a header pointing back to the 
MINTAINERS file/database;


/*
 * MAINTAINERS: 3C359 NETWORK DRIVER
 */

Thst should keep things minimal enough to keep them updated, no?

Rene.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[John W. Linville]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 06:19:26PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 16:37 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:

> > If the problem is to do with people failing to update the MAINTAINERS
> > file, why would moving the same data into 20 or 30 source files motivate
> > them to keep it up to date? As far as I can see, that would just serve
> > to multiply the amount of stale data...
> 
> if each .c file has a MODULE_MAINTAINER() tag... 
> 
> people tend to update .c files a lot better than way off-the-side other
> files.

I think this approach makes a lot more sense than adding a bunch of
data to MAINTAINERS all for a tool that I'll wager few people would
ever use.

John
-- 
John W. Linville
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Rene Herman]

On 08/14/2007 03:19 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:


On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 16:37 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:

On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 10:42 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:



The maintainer info should be in the source file itself! That's the only
reasonable way to keep it updated; now I'm all for having it machine
parsable so that tools can use it, but it still really should be in the
code itself, not in some central file that will always just go out of
data, and will be a huge source of needless patch conflicts.


If the problem is to do with people failing to update the MAINTAINERS 
file, why would moving the same data into 20 or 30 source files

motivate them to keep it up to date? As far as I can see, that would
just serve to multiply the amount of stale data...


if each .c file has a MODULE_MAINTAINER() tag... 


people tend to update .c files a lot better than way off-the-side other
files.


MODULE_MAINTAINER() was discussed a while ago but embedding information into 
the binary has the problem you can't ever change deployed systems, meaning 
it lags by design. If a maintainer changes, people would still be using the 
information from their old binaries, meaning a replaced maintainer might get 
contacted for potentially years still (and the new one not).


(you could avoid that by placing not a name/address in the maintainer tag 
but a pointer to somewhere else but at that point this gets to be about 
solving something else).


Keeping it in the source alone is fine. C files could just embed their 
MAINTAINERS entry as a header:


/*
 * P: Maintainer
 * M: Mail patches to
 * L: Mailing list that is relevant to this area
 * W: Web-page with status/info
 * T: SCM tree type and location.  Type is one of: git, hg, quilt.
 * S: Status, one of the following:
 */

And probably adding fields:

 * I: Info/Summary (for index files and the like)
 * A: Author
 * G: License

and such. Yes, while we're at it, we can pick better letters or full word 
tags ;-)


Rene.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 16:37 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 10:42 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > The maintainer info should be in the source file itself! That's the only
> > reasonable way to keep it updated; now I'm all for having it machine
> > parsable so that tools can use it, but it still really should be in the
> > code itself, not in some central file that will always just go out of
> > data, and will be a huge source of needless patch conflicts.
> 
> If the problem is to do with people failing to update the MAINTAINERS
> file, why would moving the same data into 20 or 30 source files motivate
> them to keep it up to date? As far as I can see, that would just serve
> to multiply the amount of stale data...

if each .c file has a MODULE_MAINTAINER() tag... 

people tend to update .c files a lot better than way off-the-side other
files.

-- 
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via 
http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Adrian Bunk]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 10:09:08AM -0700, Ray Lee wrote:
> On 8/12/07, Joe Perches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I grew weary of looking up the appropriate
> > maintainer email address(es) to CC: for a patch.
> >
> > I added flags to the MAINTAINERS file
> >
> > F:  file pattern
> >
> > for each maintained block and a script to parse
> > the modified blocks for maintainer and list
> > email addresses.
> 
> Why not parse git annotate or blame instead (other than it's freakin'
> slow)? Using the repository history has the added benefit of telling
> you a lot more fine-grained detail about who may want to know about
> your patch.

The git tree simply does not contain this information.

Some of the obvious problems:
- recently changed maintainership
- new maintainer email address with the old one bouncing
- git never contains maintainer mailing list addresses
- you can't distinguish between a maintainer of a driver and people only
  writing or forwarding patches for a driver

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Richard Knutsson]

Kok, Auke wrote:

Richard Knutsson wrote:

Kok, Auke wrote:

Joe Perches wrote:

I grew weary of looking up the appropriate
maintainer email address(es) to CC: for a patch.

I added flags to the MAINTAINERS file

F:file pattern

for each maintained block and a script to parse
the modified blocks for maintainer and list
email addresses.

perl scripts/get_maintainer.pl 

gives the appropriate maintainer(s).

Modifications since last post:

Added options to control email address style and multiple address 
separator


Please apply.
Well, I came up with this implementation, so I definately support it 
and the way Joe implemented it:


Really? Please check out this thread with at least two ideas of 
possible implementations, with Stefan Richter as the spokesman of the 
current implementation: 
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=116870578531280&w=3
...and I am not saying there hasn't been someone suggesting it even 
earlier.


The expression; nothing is new under the sun comes to mind ;)

Anyway, glad to see someone actually implementing it. Thanks!


bad wording my side, I never implemented anything, but I did post the 
"F:" flag idea specific to allocating files to developers on lkml: 
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/29/300


...and so did Stefan: 
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=116871954100026&w=3 :)


cu
Richard Knutsson

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Trond Myklebust]

On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 10:42 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> The maintainer info should be in the source file itself! That's the only
> reasonable way to keep it updated; now I'm all for having it machine
> parsable so that tools can use it, but it still really should be in the
> code itself, not in some central file that will always just go out of
> data, and will be a huge source of needless patch conflicts.

If the problem is to do with people failing to update the MAINTAINERS
file, why would moving the same data into 20 or 30 source files motivate
them to keep it up to date? As far as I can see, that would just serve
to multiply the amount of stale data...

Trond

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Kok, Auke]

Richard Knutsson wrote:

Kok, Auke wrote:

Joe Perches wrote:

I grew weary of looking up the appropriate
maintainer email address(es) to CC: for a patch.

I added flags to the MAINTAINERS file

F:file pattern

for each maintained block and a script to parse
the modified blocks for maintainer and list
email addresses.

perl scripts/get_maintainer.pl 

gives the appropriate maintainer(s).

Modifications since last post:

Added options to control email address style and multiple address 
separator


Please apply.
Well, I came up with this implementation, so I definately support it 
and the way Joe implemented it:


Really? Please check out this thread with at least two ideas of possible 
implementations, with Stefan Richter as the spokesman of the current 
implementation: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=116870578531280&w=3

...and I am not saying there hasn't been someone suggesting it even earlier.

The expression; nothing is new under the sun comes to mind ;)

Anyway, glad to see someone actually implementing it. Thanks!


bad wording my side, I never implemented anything, but I did post the "F:" flag 
idea specific to allocating files to developers on lkml: 
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/29/300


Cheers,

Auke
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Theodore Tso]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 08:41:03PM +0200, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > The maintainer info should be in the source file itself!
> 
> Nope, it should be outside of the (downloadable) tarball, because
> once someone get a tarball you can't update the data in it.
> This is fine WRT source (which is static given a version) but
> doesn't work for fast-changing data.

But the maintainers file is in the tarball today.  If someone wants to
take the information from the latest git tree, gather it up into a
single html file, and put it on the web, more power to them.  But it
seems that the master source of the data should be the source file.

- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:21:10 +0200, Jan Engelhardt said:
> 
> On Aug 14 2007 00:02, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >
> >Better solution is to have multiple MAINTAINERS files distributed in the
> >kernel tree, IMHO -- say a drivers/net/MAINTAINERS for maintainer info on
> >all various net drivers, drivers/kvm/MAINTAINERS for KVM maintainer info,
> >fs/ext3/MAINTAINERS for ext3 maintainers, fs/MAINTAINERS for generic VFS
> >maintainers info, so on and so forth. Of course, these individual
> >MAINTAINERS files could still have the newly-introduced "F:" fields as
> >well (drivers/net/MAINTAINERS would clearly require it, f.e.) ...
> 
> Yes please.
> 
> Or perhaps even putting the maintainer into the Kconfig files?

There's large swaths of code that don't have an obvious Kconfig entry
but do have a Maintainer entry - VFS, lots of kernel/*, and so on.


pgpzrQjNVORss.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Richard Knutsson]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:

On Aug 14 2007 00:02, Satyam Sharma wrote:
  

Better solution is to have multiple MAINTAINERS files distributed in the
kernel tree, IMHO -- say a drivers/net/MAINTAINERS for maintainer info on
all various net drivers, drivers/kvm/MAINTAINERS for KVM maintainer info,
fs/ext3/MAINTAINERS for ext3 maintainers, fs/MAINTAINERS for generic VFS
maintainers info, so on and so forth. Of course, these individual
MAINTAINERS files could still have the newly-introduced "F:" fields as
well (drivers/net/MAINTAINERS would clearly require it, f.e.) ...



Yes please.

Or perhaps even putting the maintainer into the Kconfig files?

  
Hope I am not biting my ass now, but I believed this was suggested but 
the counter-argument were; is really a file/system made to configure the 
kernel related to the maintainer?


I like the idea of ".maintainers" (or maybe even ".maintainer" now). It 
has also been suggested that the file should be at the lowest common 
pathway to avoid duplication. Downside is the added need to search for 
the file...


Richard Knutsson

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Richard Knutsson]

Kok, Auke wrote:

Joe Perches wrote:

I grew weary of looking up the appropriate
maintainer email address(es) to CC: for a patch.

I added flags to the MAINTAINERS file

F:file pattern

for each maintained block and a script to parse
the modified blocks for maintainer and list
email addresses.

perl scripts/get_maintainer.pl 

gives the appropriate maintainer(s).

Modifications since last post:

Added options to control email address style and multiple address 
separator


Please apply.


Well, I came up with this implementation, so I definately support it 
and the way Joe implemented it:


Really? Please check out this thread with at least two ideas of possible 
implementations, with Stefan Richter as the spokesman of the current 
implementation: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=116870578531280&w=3

...and I am not saying there hasn't been someone suggesting it even earlier.

The expression; nothing is new under the sun comes to mind ;)

Anyway, glad to see someone actually implementing it. Thanks!

Richard Knutsson

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Aug 14 2007 00:02, Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
>Better solution is to have multiple MAINTAINERS files distributed in the
>kernel tree, IMHO -- say a drivers/net/MAINTAINERS for maintainer info on
>all various net drivers, drivers/kvm/MAINTAINERS for KVM maintainer info,
>fs/ext3/MAINTAINERS for ext3 maintainers, fs/MAINTAINERS for generic VFS
>maintainers info, so on and so forth. Of course, these individual
>MAINTAINERS files could still have the newly-introduced "F:" fields as
>well (drivers/net/MAINTAINERS would clearly require it, f.e.) ...

Yes please.

Or perhaps even putting the maintainer into the Kconfig files?


Jan
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Krzysztof Halasa]

Krzysztof Halasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Nope, it should be outside of the (downloadable) tarball, because
> once someone get a tarball you can't update the data in it.
> This is fine WRT source (which is static given a version) but
> doesn't work for fast-changing data.

... OTOH I think this additional info in MAINTAINERS file is better
than the file without it.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Krzysztof Halasa]

Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> The maintainer info should be in the source file itself!

Nope, it should be outside of the (downloadable) tarball, because
once someone get a tarball you can't update the data in it.
This is fine WRT source (which is static given a version) but
doesn't work for fast-changing data.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Satyam Sharma]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> 
> On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 19:33 +0200, Mariusz Kozlowski wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I don't recall discusion about this so here are my 3 cents:
> > 
> > I like the idea. 
> 
> I don't actually. It shows a central MAINTAINERS file is the wrong
> approach; just that 500+ patches to the same file were needed shows
> that. 
> 
> The maintainer info should be in the source file itself! That's the only
> reasonable way to keep it updated; now I'm all for having it machine
> parsable so that tools can use it, but it still really should be in the
> code itself, not in some central file that will always just go out of
> data, and will be a huge source of needless patch conflicts.

I second this thought (keeping MAINTAINERS info closer to code than in
a central kernel-global location), but have a differing opinion about the
implementation. Having MAINTAINERS-style annotations in all source files
sounds needlessly redundant. Worse still, I expect people will avoid adding
these annotations to all source files precisely for this reason, thus
someone editing drivers/xxx/foo.c would have no idea that the maintainer
info for this file is actually in drivers/xxx/bar.c.

Better solution is to have multiple MAINTAINERS files distributed in the
kernel tree, IMHO -- say a drivers/net/MAINTAINERS for maintainer info on
all various net drivers, drivers/kvm/MAINTAINERS for KVM maintainer info,
fs/ext3/MAINTAINERS for ext3 maintainers, fs/MAINTAINERS for generic VFS
maintainers info, so on and so forth. Of course, these individual
MAINTAINERS files could still have the newly-introduced "F:" fields as
well (drivers/net/MAINTAINERS would clearly require it, f.e.) ...


Satyam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Rene Herman]

On 08/13/2007 07:42 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:


On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 19:33 +0200, Mariusz Kozlowski wrote:

Hello,

I don't recall discusion about this so here are my 3 cents:

	I like the idea. 


I don't actually. It shows a central MAINTAINERS file is the wrong
approach; just that 500+ patches to the same file were needed shows
that. 


Quite.

The maintainer info should be in the source file itself! That's the only 
reasonable way to keep it updated; now I'm all for having it machine 
parsable so that tools can use it, but it still really should be in the 
code itself, not in some central file that will always just go out of 
data, and will be a huge source of needless patch conflicts.


This is quite like the OO-INDEX discussion now going, where I saw it argued 
that the one-line summaries could go at the top of the actual Documentation 
files themselves, where they could be mechanically extracted to _build_ the 
index files. Keeping things in sync is the important reason there as well.


While the notion behing these patches appears to be good, the tree sees many 
changes through addition, removal and movement of files which affects this. 
Is Linus's copy of git going to check if an added file doesn't overlap with 
an existing wildcard in the MAINTAINERS file and delele or adjust wildcards 
upon removal or movement?


I personally think it wouldn't be such as bad idea to introduce a standard 
Linux source file header, with (when present) information such as the 
summary for index files, maintainer information, and other information now 
present in MAINTAINERS. With it being in the sourcefile themslves, it will 
stand a much better chance of staying up to date.


Rene.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:09:08 PDT, Ray Lee said:
> On 8/12/07, Joe Perches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I grew weary of looking up the appropriate
> > maintainer email address(es) to CC: for a patch.
> >
> > I added flags to the MAINTAINERS file
> >
> > F:  file pattern
> >
> > for each maintained block and a script to parse
> > the modified blocks for maintainer and list
> > email addresses.
> 
> Why not parse git annotate or blame instead (other than it's freakin'
> slow)? Using the repository history has the added benefit of telling
> you a lot more fine-grained detail about who may want to know about
> your patch.

1) Not everybody wants to install git and pull down the whole kernel tree
just so they can do 'git blame' and point the report at the right cc:'s.
(Heck, *I* don't even have a 'git pull' of the kernel handy, and I probably
whinge about a lot more stuff than the average person reporting a bug)

2) A quick 'grep git' through Documentation/ doesn't find any actual mention
of how to find a web page that will do a 'git blame' for you.

I posit that if you want users to point bug reports at the correct cc:'s,
all the information needed has to be in the distributed linux-2.6.foo.tar file
(I'd allow that a functional "Go to this URL" suffices for this).



pgpFiPyaLTTO8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Mariusz Kozlowski]

> > I don't recall discusion about this so here are my 3 cents:
> > 
> > I like the idea. 
> 
> I don't actually. It shows a central MAINTAINERS file is the wrong
> approach; just that 500+ patches to the same file were needed shows
> that. 
> 
> The maintainer info should be in the source file itself! That's the only
> reasonable way to keep it updated; now I'm all for having it machine
> parsable so that tools can use it, but it still really should be in the
> code itself, not in some central file that will always just go out of
> data, and will be a huge source of needless patch conflicts.

The downside is that a lot of info will get duplicated. It will be more 
accurate though.
I agree either way. 

Regards,

Mariusz
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 19:33 +0200, Mariusz Kozlowski wrote:
> Hello,
> 
>   I don't recall discusion about this so here are my 3 cents:
> 
>   I like the idea. 

I don't actually. It shows a central MAINTAINERS file is the wrong
approach; just that 500+ patches to the same file were needed shows
that. 

The maintainer info should be in the source file itself! That's the only
reasonable way to keep it updated; now I'm all for having it machine
parsable so that tools can use it, but it still really should be in the
code itself, not in some central file that will always just go out of
data, and will be a huge source of needless patch conflicts.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Rene Herman]

On 08/13/2007 09:16 AM, Al Viro wrote:


On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 10:49:34PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:

I grew weary of looking up the appropriate
maintainer email address(es) to CC: for a patch.


Does the acronym GAFL ring any bells?  It's not that idea is worthless -
it sure as hell is a useful thing, but what the bleeding hell is that
splitup supposed to achieve?


Well, to be fair, he's CCing the addresses in the individual entries which 
is at least somewhat of a reason. Yes, could've worked via preparation via 
private mail as well or something but hey, posting some 600 patches is at 
least incredibly funny :-)


Only thing left now is to now teach Linus's copy of git about these entries 
so that it doesn't turn into an wholy incomplete, obsolete mess through 
addition, removal and movement of files in a few months time...


Rene.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Mariusz Kozlowski]

Hello,

I don't recall discusion about this so here are my 3 cents:

I like the idea. The numerous responses you got that you made a mistake
and someone else is the maintainer just prove that this kind of information 
would
be nice to have. Even if it is not going to be included in mainline it is still
nice to have around as a patchset or sth. Personally I often run into trouble 
finding
right person to CC on patches.

I get the feeling that only the maintainers themselves + a few old geeks here 
know
who is maintaining what (and which file) ;-) But maybe it's just me.

The rest is as people say. These ~550 patches without 'in reply to' is a 
nightmare.

Regards,

Mariusz
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Ray Lee]

On 8/12/07, Joe Perches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I grew weary of looking up the appropriate
> maintainer email address(es) to CC: for a patch.
>
> I added flags to the MAINTAINERS file
>
> F:  file pattern
>
> for each maintained block and a script to parse
> the modified blocks for maintainer and list
> email addresses.

Why not parse git annotate or blame instead (other than it's freakin'
slow)? Using the repository history has the added benefit of telling
you a lot more fine-grained detail about who may want to know about
your patch.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Sam Ravnborg]

> 
> Please, people, try to think for a minute.  Patch series are good not
> just because; there are rational reasons for that.  None of those
> applies here; if anything, you've made sure that this patchbomb will
> be less reviewed.

This huge serie had one nice property.
Relavent people got only relevant patches sent direct.
They should have been sent *only* to these people and then
with relevant modifications could have been applied as a single patch.

Sam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 11:09:01PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> Forgot

Could you please in the usage give a short intro to
what is the actual purpose of this script.

And no - I do not like the unix style where programs
says nada what they are supposed to do.

Sam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Kok, Auke]

Joe Perches wrote:

I grew weary of looking up the appropriate
maintainer email address(es) to CC: for a patch.

I added flags to the MAINTAINERS file

F:  file pattern

for each maintained block and a script to parse
the modified blocks for maintainer and list
email addresses.

perl scripts/get_maintainer.pl 

gives the appropriate maintainer(s).

Modifications since last post:

Added options to control email address style and multiple address separator

Please apply.


Well, I came up with this implementation, so I definately support it and the way 
Joe implemented it:


Acked-by: Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Cheers,

Auke




diff --git a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
new file mode 100755
index 000..3e5cc6c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
@@ -0,0 +1,217 @@
+#!/usr/bin/perl -w
+# (c) 2007, Joe Perches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+#   created from checkpatch.pl
+# Licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL License version 2
+
+use strict;
+
+my $P = $0;
+$P =~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/@@g;
+
+my $V = '0.02';
+
+use Getopt::Long qw(:config no_auto_abbrev);
+
+my $tree = "./";
+my $email_maintainer = 1;
+my $email_maintainer_name = 1;
+my $email_list = 1;
+my $email_subscriber_list = 0;
+my $email_separator = ", ";
+my %saw;
+
+GetOptions(
+  'tree=s' => \$tree,
+  'm!' => \$email_maintainer,
+  'n!' => \$email_maintainer_name,
+  'l!' => \$email_list,
+  's!' => \$email_subscriber_list,
+  'separator=s' => \$email_separator,
+  ) or exit;
+
+my $exit = 0;
+
+if ($#ARGV < 0 ||
+($email_maintainer == 0 && $email_list == 0 && $email_subscriber_list == 
0)) {
+print "usage: $P [options] patchfile\n";
+print "version: $V\n";
+print "  --tree [path] => linux kernel source path\n";
+print "  --m => include maintainer(s) if any\n";
+print "  --n => include maintainer name 'Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'\n";
+print "  --l => include list(s) if any\n";
+print "  --s => include subscriber only list(s) if any\n";
+print "  --separator [, ] => separator for multiple addresses\n";
+print "Default: [--m --l --separator \", \"]\n";
+print "Be sure to select something...\n";
+exit(1);
+}
+
+if ($tree && !top_of_kernel_tree($tree)) {
+if (${tree} ne "") {
+   print "'${tree}' ";
+} else {
+   print "The current directory ";
+}
+print "doesn't appear to be a linux kernel source tree\n";
+exit(2);
+}
+
+## Read MAINTAINERS for type/value pairs
+
+my @typevalue = ();
+open(MAINT, "<${tree}MAINTAINERS") || die "$P: Can't open 
${tree}MAINTAINERS\n";
+while () {
+if (m/^(\C):\s*(.*)/) {
+   my $type = $1;
+   my $value = $2;
+   if ($type eq "F") {  ##Filename pattern matching
+   $value =~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED];   ##Convert . to 
\.
+   $value =~ s/\*/\.\*/g;   ##Convert * to .*
+   }
+   push(@typevalue, "$type:$value");
+} elsif (!/^(\s)*$/) {
+   push(@typevalue, $_);
+}
+}
+close(MAINT);
+
+## Find the patched filenames
+
+my @patchedfiles = ();
+open(PATCH, "<$ARGV[0]") or die "Can't open $ARGV[0]\n";
+while () {
+if (m/^\+\+\+\s+(\S+)/) {
+   my $file = $1;
+   $file =~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/]*/@@;
+   $file =~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]@@;
+   push(@patchedfiles, $file);
+}
+}
+close(PATCH);
+
+# Sort and uniq patchedfiles
+
+undef %saw;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] = sort @patchedfiles;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] = grep(!$saw{$_}++, @patchedfiles);
+
+# Find responsible parties
+
+my @email_to = ();
+foreach (@patchedfiles) {
+my $patchedfile = $_;
+my $tvi = 0;
+
+foreach (@typevalue) {
+   if (m/^(\C):(.*)/) {
+   my $type = $1;
+   my $value = $2;
+   if ($type eq 'F') {
+   if (file_match_pattern($patchedfile, $value)) {
+   my $ptvi = $tvi - 1;
+   while ($ptvi >= 0) {
+   my $tv = $typevalue[$ptvi];
+   if ($tv =~ m/^(\C):(.*)/) {
+   my $ptype = $1;
+   my $pvalue = $2;
+   if ($ptype eq "L") {
+   my $subscr = $pvalue;
+   if ($subscr =~ m/\s*\(subscribers-only\)/) {
+   if ($email_subscriber_list > 0) {
+   $subscr =~ s/\s*\(subscribers-only\)//g;
+   push(@email_to, $subscr);
+   }
+   } else {
+   if ($email_list > 0) {
+   push(@email_to, $pvalue);
+   }
+   }
+   } elsif ($ptype eq "M") {
+   if ($email_maintainer > 0) {
+   if ($ptvi >= 0) {
+ 

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Al Viro]

On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 10:49:34PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> I grew weary of looking up the appropriate
> maintainer email address(es) to CC: for a patch.

Does the acronym GAFL ring any bells?  It's not that idea is worthless -
it sure as hell is a useful thing, but what the bleeding hell is that
splitup supposed to achieve?

Please, people, try to think for a minute.  Patch series are good not
just because; there are rational reasons for that.  None of those
applies here; if anything, you've made sure that this patchbomb will
be less reviewed.

Seriously, get a fucking life.  This is way past ridiculous.  It does not
make changes easier to test.  It does not help bisect.  It does not help
to make changes more self-contained.  It does not reduce the odds of
conflict with pending patches.  It does not simplify conflict resolution
when porting.  It does not split the change into easier understood parts.
Hell, it doesn't even make it easier to revert broken parts.

Use the common sense, folks.  Please.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Michal Piotrowski]

Hey Joe,

On 13/08/07, Joe Perches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I grew weary of looking up the appropriate
> maintainer email address(es) to CC: for a patch.
>
> I added flags to the MAINTAINERS file
>
> F:  file pattern
>
> for each maintained block and a script to parse
> the modified blocks for maintainer and list
> email addresses.
>
> perl scripts/get_maintainer.pl 
>
> gives the appropriate maintainer(s).

Cool thing.

Please do not send gazzillion patches against the same file.

Regards,
Michal

-- 
LOG
http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/log/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Joe Perches]

Forgot

Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

diff --git a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
new file mode 100755
index 000..3e5cc6c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
@@ -0,0 +1,217 @@
+#!/usr/bin/perl -w
+# (c) 2007, Joe Perches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+#   created from checkpatch.pl
+# Licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL License version 2
+
+use strict;
+
+my $P = $0;
+$P =~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/@@g;
+
+my $V = '0.02';
+
+use Getopt::Long qw(:config no_auto_abbrev);
+
+my $tree = "./";
+my $email_maintainer = 1;
+my $email_maintainer_name = 1;
+my $email_list = 1;
+my $email_subscriber_list = 0;
+my $email_separator = ", ";
+my %saw;
+
+GetOptions(
+  'tree=s' => \$tree,
+  'm!' => \$email_maintainer,
+  'n!' => \$email_maintainer_name,
+  'l!' => \$email_list,
+  's!' => \$email_subscriber_list,
+  'separator=s' => \$email_separator,
+  ) or exit;
+
+my $exit = 0;
+
+if ($#ARGV < 0 ||
+($email_maintainer == 0 && $email_list == 0 && $email_subscriber_list == 
0)) {
+print "usage: $P [options] patchfile\n";
+print "version: $V\n";
+print "  --tree [path] => linux kernel source path\n";
+print "  --m => include maintainer(s) if any\n";
+print "  --n => include maintainer name 'Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'\n";
+print "  --l => include list(s) if any\n";
+print "  --s => include subscriber only list(s) if any\n";
+print "  --separator [, ] => separator for multiple addresses\n";
+print "Default: [--m --l --separator \", \"]\n";
+print "Be sure to select something...\n";
+exit(1);
+}
+
+if ($tree && !top_of_kernel_tree($tree)) {
+if (${tree} ne "") {
+   print "'${tree}' ";
+} else {
+   print "The current directory ";
+}
+print "doesn't appear to be a linux kernel source tree\n";
+exit(2);
+}
+
+## Read MAINTAINERS for type/value pairs
+
+my @typevalue = ();
+open(MAINT, "<${tree}MAINTAINERS") || die "$P: Can't open 
${tree}MAINTAINERS\n";
+while () {
+if (m/^(\C):\s*(.*)/) {
+   my $type = $1;
+   my $value = $2;
+   if ($type eq "F") {  ##Filename pattern matching
+   $value =~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED];   ##Convert . to 
\.
+   $value =~ s/\*/\.\*/g;   ##Convert * to .*
+   }
+   push(@typevalue, "$type:$value");
+} elsif (!/^(\s)*$/) {
+   push(@typevalue, $_);
+}
+}
+close(MAINT);
+
+## Find the patched filenames
+
+my @patchedfiles = ();
+open(PATCH, "<$ARGV[0]") or die "Can't open $ARGV[0]\n";
+while () {
+if (m/^\+\+\+\s+(\S+)/) {
+   my $file = $1;
+   $file =~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/]*/@@;
+   $file =~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]@@;
+   push(@patchedfiles, $file);
+}
+}
+close(PATCH);
+
+# Sort and uniq patchedfiles
+
+undef %saw;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] = sort @patchedfiles;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] = grep(!$saw{$_}++, @patchedfiles);
+
+# Find responsible parties
+
+my @email_to = ();
+foreach (@patchedfiles) {
+my $patchedfile = $_;
+my $tvi = 0;
+
+foreach (@typevalue) {
+   if (m/^(\C):(.*)/) {
+   my $type = $1;
+   my $value = $2;
+   if ($type eq 'F') {
+   if (file_match_pattern($patchedfile, $value)) {
+   my $ptvi = $tvi - 1;
+   while ($ptvi >= 0) {
+   my $tv = $typevalue[$ptvi];
+   if ($tv =~ m/^(\C):(.*)/) {
+   my $ptype = $1;
+   my $pvalue = $2;
+   if ($ptype eq "L") {
+   my $subscr = $pvalue;
+   if ($subscr =~ m/\s*\(subscribers-only\)/) {
+   if ($email_subscriber_list > 0) {
+   $subscr =~ s/\s*\(subscribers-only\)//g;
+   push(@email_to, $subscr);
+   }
+   } else {
+   if ($email_list > 0) {
+   push(@email_to, $pvalue);
+   }
+   }
+   } elsif ($ptype eq "M") {
+   if ($email_maintainer > 0) {
+   if ($ptvi >= 0) {
+   my $tv = $typevalue[$ptvi - 1];
+   if ($tv =~ m/^(\C):(.*)/) {
+   if ($1 eq "P" && 
$email_maintainer_name > 0) {
+   push(@email_to, "$2 <$pvalue>");
+   } else {
+   push(@email_to, $pvalue);
+   }
+   }
+   } else {
+   

[PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Joe Perches]

I grew weary of looking up the appropriate
maintainer email address(es) to CC: for a patch.

I added flags to the MAINTAINERS file

F:  file pattern

for each maintained block and a script to parse
the modified blocks for maintainer and list
email addresses.

perl scripts/get_maintainer.pl 

gives the appropriate maintainer(s).

Modifications since last post:

Added options to control email address style and multiple address separator

Please apply.

diff --git a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
new file mode 100755
index 000..3e5cc6c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
@@ -0,0 +1,217 @@
+#!/usr/bin/perl -w
+# (c) 2007, Joe Perches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+#   created from checkpatch.pl
+# Licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL License version 2
+
+use strict;
+
+my $P = $0;
+$P =~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/@@g;
+
+my $V = '0.02';
+
+use Getopt::Long qw(:config no_auto_abbrev);
+
+my $tree = "./";
+my $email_maintainer = 1;
+my $email_maintainer_name = 1;
+my $email_list = 1;
+my $email_subscriber_list = 0;
+my $email_separator = ", ";
+my %saw;
+
+GetOptions(
+  'tree=s' => \$tree,
+  'm!' => \$email_maintainer,
+  'n!' => \$email_maintainer_name,
+  'l!' => \$email_list,
+  's!' => \$email_subscriber_list,
+  'separator=s' => \$email_separator,
+  ) or exit;
+
+my $exit = 0;
+
+if ($#ARGV < 0 ||
+($email_maintainer == 0 && $email_list == 0 && $email_subscriber_list == 
0)) {
+print "usage: $P [options] patchfile\n";
+print "version: $V\n";
+print "  --tree [path] => linux kernel source path\n";
+print "  --m => include maintainer(s) if any\n";
+print "  --n => include maintainer name 'Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'\n";
+print "  --l => include list(s) if any\n";
+print "  --s => include subscriber only list(s) if any\n";
+print "  --separator [, ] => separator for multiple addresses\n";
+print "Default: [--m --l --separator \", \"]\n";
+print "Be sure to select something...\n";
+exit(1);
+}
+
+if ($tree && !top_of_kernel_tree($tree)) {
+if (${tree} ne "") {
+   print "'${tree}' ";
+} else {
+   print "The current directory ";
+}
+print "doesn't appear to be a linux kernel source tree\n";
+exit(2);
+}
+
+## Read MAINTAINERS for type/value pairs
+
+my @typevalue = ();
+open(MAINT, "<${tree}MAINTAINERS") || die "$P: Can't open 
${tree}MAINTAINERS\n";
+while () {
+if (m/^(\C):\s*(.*)/) {
+   my $type = $1;
+   my $value = $2;
+   if ($type eq "F") {  ##Filename pattern matching
+   $value =~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED];   ##Convert . to 
\.
+   $value =~ s/\*/\.\*/g;   ##Convert * to .*
+   }
+   push(@typevalue, "$type:$value");
+} elsif (!/^(\s)*$/) {
+   push(@typevalue, $_);
+}
+}
+close(MAINT);
+
+## Find the patched filenames
+
+my @patchedfiles = ();
+open(PATCH, "<$ARGV[0]") or die "Can't open $ARGV[0]\n";
+while () {
+if (m/^\+\+\+\s+(\S+)/) {
+   my $file = $1;
+   $file =~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/]*/@@;
+   $file =~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]@@;
+   push(@patchedfiles, $file);
+}
+}
+close(PATCH);
+
+# Sort and uniq patchedfiles
+
+undef %saw;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] = sort @patchedfiles;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] = grep(!$saw{$_}++, @patchedfiles);
+
+# Find responsible parties
+
+my @email_to = ();
+foreach (@patchedfiles) {
+my $patchedfile = $_;
+my $tvi = 0;
+
+foreach (@typevalue) {
+   if (m/^(\C):(.*)/) {
+   my $type = $1;
+   my $value = $2;
+   if ($type eq 'F') {
+   if (file_match_pattern($patchedfile, $value)) {
+   my $ptvi = $tvi - 1;
+   while ($ptvi >= 0) {
+   my $tv = $typevalue[$ptvi];
+   if ($tv =~ m/^(\C):(.*)/) {
+   my $ptype = $1;
+   my $pvalue = $2;
+   if ($ptype eq "L") {
+   my $subscr = $pvalue;
+   if ($subscr =~ m/\s*\(subscribers-only\)/) {
+   if ($email_subscriber_list > 0) {
+   $subscr =~ s/\s*\(subscribers-only\)//g;
+   push(@email_to, $subscr);
+   }
+   } else {
+   if ($email_list > 0) {
+   push(@email_to, $pvalue);
+   }
+   }
+   } elsif ($ptype eq "M") {
+   if ($email_maintainer > 0) {
+   if ($ptvi >= 0) {
+   my $tv = $typevalue[$ptvi - 1];
+   if ($tv =~ m/^(\C):(.*)/) {
+   if ($1