On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 9:24 AM Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Em Thu, 17 Jun 2021 08:33:29 -0600 > Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 2:55 AM Mauro Carvalho Chehab > > <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Em Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:20:31 +0200 > > > Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 8:53 AM Mauro Carvalho Chehab > > > > <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Em Wed, 16 Jun 2021 15:11:33 -0600 > > > > > Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:18 AM Konstantin Ryabitsev > > > > > > <konstantin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, all: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've been doing some work on the "github-pr-to-ml" bot that can monitor GitHub > > > > > > > pull requests on a project and convert them into fully well-formed patch > > > > > > > series. This would be a one-way operation, effectively turning Github into a > > > > > > > fancy "git-send-email" replacement. That said, it would have the following > > > > > > > benefits for both submitters and maintainers: > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes this specific to Github PRs? A Github PR is really just a > > > > > > git branch plus a target at least to the extent we would use it here. > > > > > > The more of this that works on just a git branch, the more widely > > > > > > useful it would be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > - submitters would no longer need to navigate their way around > > > > > > > git-format-patch, get_maintainer.pl, and git-send-email -- nor would need to > > > > > > > have a patch-friendly outgoing mail gateway to properly contribute patches > > > > > > > > > > > > Presumably, the bot would rely on get_maintainer.pl or it would get > > > > > > who to send to based on GH repo and reviewers? Without work on > > > > > > get_maintainer.pl, I don't think it will work well beyond simple > > > > > > cases. > > > > > > > > > > Some sanity test is needed, as otherwise it will end by trying to send > > > > > the patch to a large number of people. > > > > > > > > I think this system needs to use get_maintainer.pl results as is and > > > > any fixing/filtering/sanity checking needs to go into > > > > get_maintainer.pl itself. > > > > get_maintainer.pl is what is used by lots of contributors, the only > > > > option for any automated systems, what is used by new contributors if > > > > they don't use this system anyway. And even experienced developers > > > > know internal rules only for a few subsystems and use > > > > get_maintainer.pl when sending a one-off patch to another subsystem > > > > (what else?). > > > > > > > > I don't see where we are getting if we accept get_maintainer.pl > > > > produces bad results and needs additional fixing in every system out > > > > there (dozens) and when used by humans. All systems would need the > > > > same filtering/checking rules and they need to keep in sync. What a > > > > kernel developer would even need to do to fix something (add/remove > > > > themselves)? Go and talk to a large unknown set of systems that > > > > duplicate the same additional rules? > > > > > > > > And the only way to surface actual issues with get_maintainer.pl is to > > > > start using it. In fact it's already widely used as is, so I am not > > > > sure it's particularly bad. > > > > > > I'm not saying that get_maintainer.pl produces bad result. Depending > > > on what is done, it could produce a very large output. > > > > > > Let's suppose that someone do something like globally renaming a > > > widely-used kAPI, e. g. something like: > > > > > > $ git ls-files|xargs sed s,mutex_,new_mutex_, -i > > > > > > A change like that would touch lots of subsystems, making get_maintainer.pl > > > to spend a lot of time processing it, and producing thousands of > > > entries (btw, we had a change somewhat similar to the above a long time > > > ago when mutex API was introduced and most of the semaphores were converted > > > to use mutex kAPI instead). > > > > What I end up doing in those cases is only Cc'ing the subsystem > > maintainers. But that's a manual step of dropping all the driver and > > SoC maintainers. > > Yeah, surely it would be a lot better if the maintainer's file would > have a way to distinguish between driver and subsystem maintainers. > > > A related problem is if you want to put who should > > apply the patch on To. That's maybe as simple as whether the > > maintainer entry has a git tree. > > It is not that simple. Driver maintainers usually also point to the > subsystem's tree. I somewhat suspected that. Perhaps it should be explicit then. Or remove those as it's redundant information. > One way would be to look at the committer for the file. > > Another one would be to check if there are multiple maintainers > for the same file, with different entries. If so, the first > entry is the driver maintainer, and the last one, the subsystem > maintainer. Yet, this is heuristics, and may lead to errors. That's every binding file. :( There's me, the subsystem maintainer and the file/device maintainer. Could be a 4th one if there's file wildcard matching. Rob
