On 28/09/2022 13:02, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
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 :-/
So it feels to me like the right thing to do is change get_maintainer
and accompanying documentation but, I'll wait to hear back from Jonathan.
---
bod
