On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 11:37:03 +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > On 01/10/2022 03:37, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >> FWIW, I actually think the output of get_maintainer.pl is pretty >> broken in this regard. (Then again, I've never thought all that >> highly of get_maintainer.pl,*especially* because of the bogus git >> fallback, but that's another story.) >> >> Consider: >> >> % ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --file drivers/acpi/power.c >> "Rafael J. Wysocki"<rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> (supporter:ACPI) >> Len Brown<lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> (reviewer:ACPI) >> linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list:ACPI) >> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list) >> >> I'm sorry, but that's just*wrong*. Rafael is the*maintainer* of the >> ACPI subsystem, and the term "supporter" is rarely if ever used >> anywhere in our docs. As I said earlier, trying to treat S: field to >> say anything about the entitles listed under the M: field of the >> Maintainers file is a category error. > > I agree, I made exactly this error. > > I wasn't sure how people would necessarily feel about having > get_maintainer produce the string 'maintainer' for both Maintained and > Supported but, IMO it is more consistent to have it do so, since we refer > to maintainers all throughout the doucmentation and as you say above Rafael > is the person you *need* to mail there because he's the maintainer. You'd better CC Joe Perches, who is the maintainer of get_maintainer.pl. You might want to start a new thread with a different subject. The main point becomes the behavior of get_maintainer.pl. > > Lets consider > > - maintainer as a string for "S: Supported" > - Documentation update to reflect Krzysztof's point on git-fallback Sounds reasonable to me. Good luck! Thanks, Akira > > --- > bod
