On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 12:29:22PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > The script currently uses the subystem's status (S: field) to change how > maintainers are reported. One prominent example is when the status is > Supported, the maintainers are reported as "(supporter:SUBSYSTEM)". > > This is misleading, as the Supported status defined as "Someone is > actually paid to look after this." may not in fact apply to everyone > listed as a maintainer, but only to some of them. > > It has also been confusing people to what "supporter" means and has > required updates to the documentation [1]. > > Thus stop applying the subsystem status to change "maintainer:" to > anything else, as maintainers are maintainers. Instead, if the subsystem > status is not the most common one (Maintained), indicate it as part of > the subsystem name. So for example, instead of "(supporter:SUBSYSTEM)" > report "(maintainer:SUBSYSTEM [supported])". > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221006162413.858527-1-bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx> > Cc: "Bryan O'Donoghue" <bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <kees@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > I have been confused myself in the past seeing "supporter" and have seen > somebody recently wondering what it means as well. > > I have read the threads from 2022 that in the end resulted in adjusting > documentation only [1]. I very much agree with Ted's points about taking > the subsystem status and applying it to all maintainers being wrong [2]. > > The attempt to modify get_maintainer output was retracted after Joe > objected that the status becomes not reported at all [3]. This RFC > attempts to address that by reporting the status (unless it's the most > common one) as part of the subsystem. > > The patch is not perfect, as with this approach, the logical thing would > be to do the same also for reviewers and mailing lists. In fact, > subsystems with a status of Orphan typically only have some catch-all > mailing list and no maintainers, so the "(orphan minder:SUBSYSTEM)" > would never be currently reported by checkpatch. It would be thus > logical to report the status in the same way for lists (and reviewers). > > But I didn't attempt a full implementation as I'm not fluent in Perl and > would like to see if we can get a consensus first. If we do, I don't > insist in this particular "SUBSYSTEM [status]" syntax nor on > implementing the full solution myself - I would be happy if somebody > else did. My main point is that maintainer is a maintainer and the > subsystem status should be indicated for the subsystem, not for the > maintainer. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221006162413.858527-1-bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx/ > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Yzen4X1Na0MKXHs9@xxxxxxx/ > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/30776fe75061951777da8fa6618ae89bea7a8ce4.camel@xxxxxxxxxxx/ Do we want to change "Supported" to "Funded" to help clear up the meaning? (But yes, I agree, that the subsystem status should be applied to the subsystem, not the individual contacts.) -Kees -- Kees Cook
