On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 01:52:55PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 4/6/23 13:48, Zorro Lang wrote:
> ...
> >>> The MAINTAINERS and get_maintainer.pl are copied from linux project,
> >>> then made some changes for fstests specially.
> >>
> >> Hi Zorro,
> >>
> >> Instead of forking 23,000+ lines of MAINTAINERS and 2600+ lines of
> >> script into a strange tools/ location ("tools/" would then mean fstests,
> >> and "scripts/" would mean "everything else), this upgrade really should
> >> simply be done in place.
> >>
> >> I don't see much in the following patches that *truly* requires forking
> >> these files. And if you fix them up in place, then more people will be
> >> able to find the fstests maintainers easily, too.
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > Thanks for your reviewing.
> >
> > What's the meaning of "fix them up in place"? Do you suggest to change
> > the location/path of the the MAINTAINERS file and get_maintainer script,
> > or rewrite them simply and totally (from zero)?
> >
>
> I meant, change MAINTAINERS and scripts/get_maintainer.pl directly, so
> as to get the new information about fstests and maintainers. That
> requires some effort, because you have to keep the existing functionality
> working, but I do think it's worth the effort.
I doubt Linux project would like to accept that :)
Although linux/MAINTAINERS records the LTP maintainer list, it doesn't help
more on ltp patch itself. So even linux/MAINTAINERS would like to have a
field about fstests, but it's not what this patchset for.
I hope to record fstests reviewers/supporters/contributors/... in fstests
project. And help to point out which mailing list can be CCed (to get more
review) when someone have one fs specified patch to fstests.
Thanks,
Zorro
>
> thanks,
> --
> John Hubbard
> NVIDIA
>
