Hi Joe.
> >
> > > I would also be great if you or someone else could:
> > > - teach get_maintainers about .yaml file listed maintainers
> >
> > It already does to some extent. IIRC, there's a mode to extract email
> > addresses from files.
>
> --file-emails
>
> > I was hoping that the MAINTAINERS file split happens sometime and we
> > can just generate a MAINTAINERS file for bindings.
>
> I don't see the value really.
>
> > > - teach checkpatch that it is OK to convert .txt to .yaml
>
> I suppose that get_maintainer _could_ enable --file-emails
> for .yaml files.
>
> something like this (more comments below too)
> ---
> scripts/get_maintainer.pl | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
> index 6cbcd1..9d947a0 100755
> --- a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
> +++ b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
> @@ -527,7 +527,7 @@ foreach my $file (@ARGV) {
> $file =~ s/^\Q${cur_path}\E//; #strip any absolute path
> $file =~ s/^\Q${lk_path}\E//; #or the path to the lk tree
> push(@files, $file);
> - if ($file ne "MAINTAINERS" && -f $file && ($keywords || $file_emails)) {
> + if ($file ne "MAINTAINERS" && -f $file && ($keywords || $file_emails || $file =~ /\.yaml$/)) {
> open(my $f, '<', $file)
> or die "$P: Can't open $file: $!\n";
> my $text = do { local($/) ; <$f> };
> @@ -539,7 +539,7 @@ foreach my $file (@ARGV) {
> }
> }
> }
> - if ($file_emails) {
> + if ($file_emails || $file =~ /\.yaml$/) {
> my @poss_addr = $text =~ m$[A-Za-zÀ-ÿ\"\' \,\.\+-]*\s*[\,]*\s*[\(\<\{]{0,1}[A-Za-z0-9_\.\+-]+\@[A-Za-z0-9\.-]+\.[A-Za-z0-9]+[\)\>\}]{0,1}$g;
> push(@file_emails, clean_file_emails(@poss_addr));
> }
>
That would be a good step forward. So people editing yaml file
will actually copy the maintainers and not just Rob as it is today.
There is a growing tendency to rely on tools only for the
list of people on cc, which is fine, but we should make those tools
then do a good job.
Thanks for looking into this.
Patch is:
Acked-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > I don't see checkpatch being able to check much of what comes up in
> > review. Maybe indentation.
>
> Likely better done with another external tool.
>
> Could be added to checkpatch as an external
> call like spdxcheck.py
If we grow anything more than:
"Indent shall always be an even number of spaces and no tabs" kind of
rules then yes, an external tool would be fine.
Sam
