On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 10:21:32AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 26/08/2023 10:07, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: > > This script runs get_maintainer.py on a given patch file (or multiple > > patch files) and adds its output to the patch file in place with the > > appropriate email headers "To: " or "Cc: " as the case may be. These new > > headers are added after the "From: " line in the patch. > > > > Currently, for a single patch, maintainers and reviewers are added as > > "To: ", mailing lists and all other roles are added as "Cc: ". > > > > For a series of patches, however, a set-union scheme is employed in > > order to solve the all-too-common problem of ending up sending only > > subsets of a patch series to some lists, which results in important > > pieces of context such as the cover letter (or other patches in the > > series) being dropped from those lists. This scheme is as follows: > > > > - Create set-union of all maintainers and reviewers from all patches and > > use this to do the following per patch: > > - add only that specific patch's maintainers and reviewers as "To: " > > - add the other maintainers and reviewers from the other patches as "Cc: " > > > > - Create set-union of all mailing lists corresponding to all patches and > > add this to all patches as "Cc: " > > > > - Create set-union of all other roles corresponding to all patches and > > add this to all patches as "Cc: " > > > > Please note that patch files that don't have any "Maintainer"s or > > "Reviewers" explicitly listed in their `get_maintainer.pl` output will > > So before you will ignoring the reviewers, right? One more reason to not > get it right... > > > not have any "To: " entries added to them; developers are expected to > > manually make edits to the added entries in such cases to convert some > > "Cc: " entries to "To: " as desired. > > > > The script is quiet by default (only prints errors) and its verbosity > > can be adjusted via an optional parameter. > > > > Signed-off-by: Guru Das Srinagesh <quic_gurus@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > MAINTAINERS | 5 ++ > > scripts/add-maintainer.py | 164 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 169 insertions(+) > > create mode 100755 scripts/add-maintainer.py > > > > I do not see the benefits of this script. For me - it's unnecessarily > more complicated instead of my simple bash function which makes > everything one command less than here. > One more thing to maintain. Thanks for your bash script. I slightly modified it to keep maintainers in To and rest in Cc. git send-email --dry-run --to="$(scripts/get_maintainer.pl --no-multiline --separator=, --no-r --no-l --no-git --no-roles --no-rolestats --no-git-fallback *.patch)" --cc="$(scripts/get_maintainer.pl --no-multiline --separator=, --no-m --no-git --no-roles --no-rolestats --no-git-fallback *.patch)" *.patch > > I don't see the benefits of this for newcomers, either. They should use > b4. b4 can do much, much more, so anyone creating his workflow should > start from b4, not from this script. The ROI from b4 is huge. Totally agree that one should definitely consider b4 for kernel patch submissions. I really liked b4 appending a unique "change-id" across patch-versions. This is the single most feature I miss out from gerrit where all revisions of a patch are glued with a common change-id. If everyone uses, a common change-id for all versions of series, it is super easy to dig into archives. Thanks, Pavan Thanks, Pavan
