On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 12:37:14 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > The very first case I actually looked at wasn't even some > "inexperienced developer" - the kind you claim is the problem, and the > kind you claim this would help. > > It was a random fix from Florian Westphal, who has been around for > more than a decade, is credited with over 1500 commits (and mentioned > in many many more), and knows what he's doing. > > He has a patch that references a "Fixes:" line, and clearly didn't go > through the get_maintainer script as such, and the > netdev/cc_maintainers script complains as a result. Florian is sending us patches from his tree which have already been reviewed on the netfilter mailing list. It's basically a PR. There's a handful of people who do that and I don't care enough to silence it because ignoring the false positives is a noop. When some noob sends a patch which actually *should* have been CCed to more people I need to either go and CC that person in myself. Or tell the noob to repost. IOW solving the _actually_ missing CCs is higher priority for me. > So Jakub, I think you are barking *entirely* up the wrong tree. > > The reason you blame this on mis-use by inexperienced maintainers is > that you probably never even react to the experienced ones that do the > very same things, because you trust them and never bother to tell them > "you didn't use get_maintainers to get the precise list of people that > patchwork complains about". > > So the problem is not in get_maintainers. It's in having expectations > that are simply not realistic. > > You seem to think that those inexperienced developers should do something that > > (a) experienced developers don't do *EITHER* > > (b) the scripts complain about instead of just doing > > and then you think that changing get_maintainers would somehow hide the issue. > > You definitely shouldn't require inexperienced developers to do > something that clearly experienced people then don't do. > > Now, maybe I happened to just randomly pick a patchwork entry that was > very unusual. But I doubt it.
