On 30/09/2022 15:47, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 07:46:29 +0100, 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.
So the root cause of your confusion was you couldn't figure out
the fact that "supporter" in the output of get_maintainver.pl means
"maintainer of a supported subsystem", wasn't it?
I guess all you need would be just a short notice along the lines of:
"supporter" in the output from get_maintainer.pl means "maintainer
of a supported subsystem".
No?
We discussed that a bit earlier.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220928003006.230103-1-bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/9/28/1394
https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/9/28/1511
https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/9/29/188
I think its fair to say the consensus so far is to leave the
get_maintainer.pl output as is.
Add text to state that every mail address returned by get_maintainer.pl
--nogit-fallback should be included when submitting a patch, giving an
example of the same.>
Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 12 +++++++++---
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
index be49d8f2601b4..18a1f52e0563a 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
@@ -227,9 +227,15 @@ 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 every
+email address returned by `scripts/get_maintainer.pl --nogit-fallback` when
+submitting a patch.
+For example::
+
+ $ scripts/get_maintainer.pl --nogit-fallback -f submitting-patches.rst
+ Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> (maintainer:DOCUMENTATION)
+ linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list:DOCUMENTATION)
+ linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list)
This example has a number of issues...
1) The command line doesn't work when run under the top of kernel tree.
Well I didn't want to exceed 80 characters but I have no problem make it
top level explicit
2) The -f flag contradicts the instruction above:
(pass paths to your *patches* as arguments to scripts/get_maintainer.pl).
I'm not sure I follow how it contradicts but, I will read it again.
3) There can be cases where --git-fallback (default) is useful.
Can you elaborate what your thinking is on that. I'm happy to try to
include it in the instructions we give.
4) The output can change any time.
What does this mean ? The output won't change for a given patch you are
trying to send.
Do you mean the output of get_maintainer.pl can change ?
It could but, how does that negate the value of documenting what it does
right now ?
5) There is no point in using Jon's actual name and email address.
Sure, I see your point. I'll use a fake email.
Why not just add a short notice I mentioned above as a first step?
Please see above.
---
bod
