On 28.09.22 13:48, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > 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. > [...] >> 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 I really like the idea of just changing get_maintainer, but also... > 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" ...agree with this. > Feels a little less confusing to me to leave supporter as-is and just > document expectations for patch submission better. Hmm, how about this: scripts/get_maintainer.pl Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,spmi-pmic.yaml Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer[supported]:MULTIFUNCTION DEVICES (MFD)) Andy Gross <agross@xxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer[volunteer]:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT) Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer[volunteer]:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT) Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (reviewer:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT) Not totally sure about this myself. And there is a risk that any such change might break scripts that rely on the current approach used by scripts/get_maintainer.pl :-/ Ciao, Thorsten
