On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 13:13:11 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 at 13:03, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > IOW solving the _actually_ missing CCs is higher priority for me. > > You have the script. It's already being run. Use it. > > Having scripting that complains about missing Cc's, even *lists* them, > and then requires a human to do something about it - that's stupid. Just so I fully understand what you're saying - what do you expect me to do? Send the developer a notifications saying "please repost" with this CC list? How is that preferable to making them do it right the first time?! The script in patchwork *just runs get_maintainer on the patch*: https://github.com/kuba-moo/nipa/blob/master/tests/patch/cc_maintainers/test.py#L58 And developers also *already* *run* get_maintainer, they just need to be nudged to prefer running it on the patch rather than on the path. And no, Joe's position that this is "just a documentation problem" does not survive crash with reality because we already documented: Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst: scripts/get_maintainer.pl can be very useful at this step (pass paths to your patches as arguments to scripts/get_maintainer.pl). Documentation/process/3.Early-stage.rst: If passed a patch on the command line, it will list the maintainers who should probably receive copies of the patch. This is the preferred way (unlike "-f" option) to get the list of people to Cc for your patches. > Why are you using computers and automation in the first place, if said > automation then just makes for more work? Writing and maintaining that automation is also damn work. We complain nobody wants to be a maintainer and then refuse to make maintainers' life's easier :| > Then requiring inexperienced developers to do those extra things, > knowing - and not caring - that the experienced ones won't even > bother, that goes from stupid to actively malicious. > > And then asking me to change my workflow because I use a different > script that does exactly what I want - that takes "stupid and > malicious" to something where I will just ignore you. > > In other words: those changes to get_maintainer are simply not going to happen. > > Fix your own scripts, and fix your bad workflows. > > Your bad workflow not only makes it harder for new people to get > involved, they apparently waste your *own* time so much that you are > upset about it all. > > Don't shoot yourself in the foot - and if you insist on doing so, > don't ask *others* to join you in your self-destructive tendencies. No idea what you mean by "my workflow". But yeah, I kind of expected that this patch would be a waste of time. Certain problems only become clear with sufficient volume of patches, and I'm clearly incapable of explaining shit.
