Re: [PATCH] firmware/google: drop 'select EFI' to avoid recursive dependency

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 02:27 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
> 
> > > > get_maintainer's default output should answer the question "who do I
> > > > email about this file", and that ain't working :(
> > 
> > Complaints cheerfully ignored.
> > Suggestions gratefully accepted.
> > 
> > Files that haven't had changes in a long time
> > generally aren't maintained.
> > 
> > Old addresses frequently become stale and bounce.
> > 
> > It'd be better if there was a MAINTAINERS entry
> > for drivers/firmware/google.
> > 
> 
> I think scripts/get_maintainer.pl is only really useful for emailing 
> patches so I think outputting at least somebody to cc on patches would be 
> a good idea.  It doesn't necessarily need to be someone who maintains the 
> code and pushes it to Linus.

Very very few people listed in MAINTAINERS actual push to Linus.

> I'm not sure how much runtime is a factor for people of the script, but 
> falling back to git-blame behavior to at least get one or two cc's sounds 
> appropriate.  If the email address is outdated, owell, we live and learn.

Maybe something like this would work.
It uses git-blame whenever no maintainers are found.
---
 scripts/get_maintainer.pl | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

diff --git a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
index 9c3986f..ef05ed6 100755
--- a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
+++ b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
@@ -483,6 +483,13 @@ my %deduplicate_address_hash = ();
 
 my @maintainers = get_maintainers();
 
+if ($email_maintainer && !$interactive && !$email_git_blame &&
+    (!@maintainers || ($email_list && @maintainers == 1))) {
+    warn "$P: No maintainer found, trying harder, addresses may be stale...\n";
+    $email_git_blame = 1;
+    @maintainers = get_maintainers();
+}
+
 if (@maintainers) {
     @maintainers = merge_email(@maintainers);
     output(@maintainers);