On Wed, 2023-12-06 at 18:23 +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> On 12/6/23 10:12, David Gow wrote:
> > I'm pretty happy with this personally, though I definitely think we
> > need the support for tests which aren't just executable scripts (e.g.
> > the docs in patch 6).
> >
> > The get_maintailer.pl bits, and hence the requirement to not include
> > '@', feel a little bit 'off': I'd rather get_maintainer.pl kept emails
> > and tests separate by some other means (either having --test _only_
> > print tests, not emails at all, or by giving them a prefix like
> > 'TEST:' or something). But that is diverging more from the existing
> > behaviour of get_maintainer.pl, so I could go either way.
> >
> > Otherwise, this looks pretty good. I'll give it a proper test tomorrow
> > alongside the other patches.
>
> Thanks for the review, David!
>
> Yeah, I don't like the '@' bit myself, but it seems to be the path of least
> resistance right now (not necessarily the best one, of course).
>
> I'm up for adding an option to get_maintainer.pl that disables email output,
> if people like that, though.
That already exists though I don't understand the
specific requirement here
--nom --nol --nor
from
$ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --help
[]
--m => include maintainer(s) if any
--r => include reviewer(s) if any
--n => include name 'Full Name <addr@xxxxxxxxxx>'
--l => include list(s) if any
[]
Most options have both positive and negative forms.
The negative forms for --<foo> are --no<foo> and --no-<foo>.
