Re: [RFC PATCH] get_maintainer: decouple subsystem status from maintainer role

2025-01-13 Thread Vlastimil Babka
On 1/6/25 19:21, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Lo! From the "better reply late than never" department: > > Thx for picking this up again, much appreciated! Thank you both for the support :) > On 18.12.24 06:48, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 12:29:22PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >>>

Re: [RFC PATCH] get_maintainer: decouple subsystem status from maintainer role

2025-01-06 Thread Thorsten Leemhuis
Lo! From the "better reply late than never" department: Thx for picking this up again, much appreciated! On 18.12.24 06:48, Kees Cook wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 12:29:22PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> The script currently uses the subystem's status (S: field) to change how >> maintainer

Re: [RFC PATCH] get_maintainer: decouple subsystem status from maintainer role

2024-12-17 Thread Kees Cook
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 12:29:22PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > The script currently uses the subystem's status (S: field) to change how > maintainers are reported. One prominent example is when the status is > Supported, the maintainers are reported as "(supporter:SUBSYSTEM)". > > This is misl

[RFC PATCH] get_maintainer: decouple subsystem status from maintainer role

2024-12-13 Thread Vlastimil Babka
The script currently uses the subystem's status (S: field) to change how maintainers are reported. One prominent example is when the status is Supported, the maintainers are reported as "(supporter:SUBSYSTEM)". This is misleading, as the Supported status defined as "Someone is actually paid to loo