On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 09:45:25 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 at 09:23, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Nack on that bit. > > > My recollection is it's Linus' preferred mechanism. > > > > Let Linus speak for himself, hopefully he's okay with throwing > > in the -f. > > It's not the '-f' that would be the problem - that's how the script > used to work long ago, and I still occasionally end up adding the -f > by habit. > > So removing the auto-guessing of file paths wouldn't be a problem. > > But the annoying warning is wrong. > > I use get_maintainers all the time, and I *only* use it for file > paths. If I know the commit, I get the list of people from the commit > itself, so why should I *ever* use that script if I have a patch? You are special, you presumably use it to find who to report regressions to, and who to pull into conversations. This tool is primarily used by _developers_ to find _maintainers_. I mean *thousands* of developers use it every release to send their patches. The tool needs to see the commit message to fish out Fixes tags. > So the whole "use of get_maintainers is only for patches, and we > should warn about file paths" is insane. Hrmpf, hrmpf. > No. If I get that patch, I will remove the warning. The *only* reason > for me to ever use that script is for the file path lookup. > > Linus
