On Tue, 2023-07-25 at 08:59 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> We repeatedly see noobs misuse get_maintainer by running it on
> the file paths rather than the patchfile. This leads to authors
> of changes (quoted commits and commits under Fixes) not getting
> CCed. These are usually the best reviewers!
>
> The file option should really not be used by noobs, unless
> they are just trying to find a maintainer to manually contact.
noobs is not an appropriate use IMO for a commit message.
> This is what I had in mind.
<shrug> I think it's unnecessary and this content should be
better described in some process doc.
> diff --git a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
[]
> @@ -544,7 +546,13 @@ foreach my $file (@ARGV) {
> if ($from_filename && (vcs_exists() && !vcs_file_exists($file))) {
> warn "$P: file '$file' not found in version control $!\n";
> }
> - if ($from_filename || ($file ne "&STDIN" && vcs_file_exists($file))) {
> + if ($from_filename) {
> + if (!$silence_file_warning) {
> + warn "$P: WARNING: Prefer running the script on patches as "
> + . "generated by git format-patch. Selecting paths is known "
> + . "to miss recipients!\n";
Don't separate a single output message into multiple lines.
Coalesce the string elements.
Also, this should show some reason why this isn't appropriate
as a patch to a single file would not have this issue.
e.g.: When a patch series touches multiple files, showing all maintainers is useful. see: <some process doc>
> @@ -1089,6 +1098,10 @@ version: $V
> --pattern-depth=0 --remove-duplicates --rolestats]
>
> Notes:
> + Using "-f file" is generally discouraged, running the script on a filepatch
> + (as generated by git format-patch) is usually the right thing to do.
> + Commit message is an integral part of the change and $P
> + will extract additional information from it (keywords, Fixes tags etc.)
-f <file>
"filepatch" doesn't appear in the kernel at all. Use "patch file".
grammar: The commit message is...
may instead of will
