On 12/6/23 18:38, Joe Perches wrote:
On Wed, 2023-12-06 at 18:23 +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
On 12/6/23 10:12, David Gow wrote:
I'm pretty happy with this personally, though I definitely think we
need the support for tests which aren't just executable scripts (e.g.
the docs in patch 6).
The get_maintailer.pl bits, and hence the requirement to not include
'@', feel a little bit 'off': I'd rather get_maintainer.pl kept emails
and tests separate by some other means (either having --test _only_
print tests, not emails at all, or by giving them a prefix like
'TEST:' or something). But that is diverging more from the existing
behaviour of get_maintainer.pl, so I could go either way.
Otherwise, this looks pretty good. I'll give it a proper test tomorrow
alongside the other patches.
Thanks for the review, David!
Yeah, I don't like the '@' bit myself, but it seems to be the path of least
resistance right now (not necessarily the best one, of course).
I'm up for adding an option to get_maintainer.pl that disables email output,
if people like that, though.
That already exists though I don't understand the
specific requirement here
--nom --nol --nor
from
$ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --help
[]
--m => include maintainer(s) if any
--r => include reviewer(s) if any
--n => include name 'Full Name <addr@xxxxxxxxxx>'
--l => include list(s) if any
[]
Most options have both positive and negative forms.
The negative forms for --<foo> are --no<foo> and --no-<foo>.
Thanks, Joe!
Yeah, I already explored that way, but it seems to be explicitly forbidden:
$ scripts/get_maintainer.pl --nom --nol --nor
0001-dt-bindings-mailbox-convert-bcm2835-mbox-bindings-to.patch
scripts/get_maintainer.pl: Please select at least 1 email option
So, I assumed there is a reason and an intention behind this behavior and went
the other way.
Nick
