On 28/09/2022 05:34, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 28.09.22 02:30, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
Recently when submitting a yaml change I found that I had omitted the
maintainer whose tree the change needed to go through.
The reason for that is the path in MAINTAINERS is marked as Supported not
Maintained. Reading MAINTAINERS we see quote:
Supported: Someone is actually paid to look after this.
Maintained: Someone actually looks after it.
The current submitting-patches.rst only says to mail maintainers though not
supporters. When we run scripts/get_maintainer.pl anybody who is denoted a
paid maintainer will appear as a supporter.
Let's add some text to the submitting-patches.rst to indicate that
supporters should similarly be mailed so that you can't do as I did and
mail every maintainer get_maintainer.pl tells you to, without actually
mailing the one supporter you need to.
Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx>
Looks good to me, but while at it, one quick question: Would
Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst (which sadly covers exactly the same
topic) benefit from a similar clarification, even if it doesn't mention
get_maintainers explicitly?
Yes.
Which leads to two other question: Are there any other places that might
benefit from such a clarification? Or would it be even make sense to
change the format of MAINTAINERS to avoid the problem in the first
place? Maybe something like "Maintained(v)" (Someone volunteered to look
after it in spare hours.) and "Maintained(p)" (Someone is actually paid
to look after this.). Ahh, no, that doesn't look good. But you get the idea.
We could update get_maintainer to print out something else
such as
scripts/get_maintainer.pl
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml
Andy Gross <agross@xxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT)
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:ARM/QUALCOMM
SUPPORT)
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (reviewer:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT)
Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer-supporter:MULTIFUNCTION DEVICES
(MFD))
or say
scripts/get_maintainer.pl
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml
Andy Gross <agross@xxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT)
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:ARM/QUALCOMM
SUPPORT)
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (reviewer:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT)
Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> (supporting-maintainer:MULTIFUNCTION DEVICES
(MFD))
it would be less churn but, I still think we would need to update the
documentation to be very explicit that "supporting-maintainer or
maintainer" needs to be emailed with your patch so that sufficiently
talented idiots such as myself, know who to mail.
Although thinking about it we would be introducing yet another term
"supporting-maintainer" to which people would say "what is that"
Feels a little less confusing to me to leave supporter as-is and just
document expectations for patch submission better.
diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
index be49d8f2601b4..5f97379da41da 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
@@ -227,9 +227,11 @@ You should always copy the appropriate subsystem maintainer(s) on any patch
to code that they maintain; look through the MAINTAINERS file and the
source code revision history to see who those maintainers are. The
script scripts/get_maintainer.pl can be very useful at this step (pass paths to
-your patches as arguments to scripts/get_maintainer.pl). If you cannot find a
-maintainer for the subsystem you are working on, Andrew Morton
-(akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) serves as a maintainer of last resort.
+your patches as arguments to scripts/get_maintainer.pl). You should mail
+everyone who appears as "maintainer" or "supporter" in the
+scripts/get_maintainer.pl output.
Side note and bikeshedding: Not sure, I wonder if the 'in the
scripts/get_maintainer.pl output' can be dropped to make things shorter.
Or maybe even shorter along the lines of 'Mail everyone listed as
"maintainer" or "supporter"'?
Whatever, not that important.
Sure NP.
---
bod
