On Mon, 2023-07-24 at 18:04 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > [clean up the CC list] > > On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 20:32:44 -0700 Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2023-07-21 at 18:55 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 18:21:32 +0200 Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > > That's not how you run it. get_maintainers.pl should be run on patches > > > > or on all files, not just some selection. > > > > > > Adding Joe for visibility (I proposed to print a warning when people > > > do this and IIRC he wasn't on board). > > > > What's the issue here? Other than _how_ the script was used, > > I don't see an actual problem with the script itself. > > I just CCed you on another case. If people keep using get_maintainers > wrong, it *is* an issue with the script. Silly. No it's not. > > I use the scripts below to send patch series where a patch series > > are the only files in individual directories. > > The fact that most people end up wrapping get_maintainers in another > script is also a pretty strong indication that the user experience is > inadequate. Not a useful argument. Process and documentation are required. > To be clear - I'm happy to put in the work to make the changes. > It's just that from past experience you seem to have strong opinions > which run counter to maintainers' needs, and I don't really enjoy > writing Perl for the sake of it. Does anyone? Knock yourself out doing whatever you like. I do suggest you instead write wrapper scripts to get the output you want rather than updating the defaults for the script and update the process documentation to let other people know what do to as well. Something akin to Mario Limonciello's suggestion back in 2022: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220617183215.25917-1-mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx/
