From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932814AbbJPSlX (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:41:23 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.11]:54868 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932232AbbJPSlR (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:41:17 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:800:960:973:982:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1542:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2194:2199:2393:2553:2559:2562:2828:2911:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3355:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:4321:4425:5007:6119:6261:7903:9108:10004:10226:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12296:12517:12519:12740:14096:14097:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: queen52_7f6be06dcbc61 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3247 Message-ID: <1445020873.22921.53.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: add support for using an alternate MAINTAINERS file From: Joe Perches To: Jani Nikula Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 11:41:13 -0700 In-Reply-To: <87r3kumzjm.fsf@intel.com> References: <1444984605-7445-1-git-send-email-jani.nikula@intel.com> <1444985457.22921.12.camel@perches.com> <878u73npjg.fsf@intel.com> <1445012634.22921.34.camel@perches.com> <87r3kumzjm.fsf@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11-0ubuntu3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 21:35 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2015, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 12:14 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> On Fri, 16 Oct 2015, Joe Perches wrote: > >> > On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 11:36 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> >> There are large and/or complex subsystems/drivers that have domain > >> >> experts that should review patches in their domain. One such example is > >> >> drm/i915. We'd like to be able to document this in a way that can be > >> >> automatically queried for each patch, so people know who to ping for > >> >> reviews. This is what get_maintainer.pl already solves. > >> >> > >> >> However, documenting all of this in the main kernel MAINTAINERS file is > >> >> just too much noise, and potentially confusing for community > >> >> contributors. Add support for specifying and using an alternate > >> >> MAINTAINERS file with --maintainers option. > >> > > >> > Is this really useful for the community at large? > >> > >> Probably not. > >> > >> > This seems like something that might be useful for an > >> > organization but not others. > >> > >> It may be useful for several organizations contributing to the kernel. > >> > >> > Why is specifying whatever is necessary in the existing > >> > MAINTAINERS file noisy or confusing? > >> > >> IIUC you can't specify file patterns for specific reviewers within one > >> entry. I think we'd have to split up the driver entry to several, mostly > >> duplicated and possibly overlapping entries, with their own designated > >> reviewers and file patterns. I think that would be noisy and confusing. > > > > I find the concept of adding separate MAINTAINERS files odd > > and at best and not good for the community. > > Let me get this straight. You're rejecting a trivial patch increasing > the usefulness of a simple script to a number of kernel developers not > on technical grounds but because in your view the intended use is not > good for the community? Yes. I think it's perfectly fine to keep something like this out-of-tree in your own repository. > So had I said, this patch enables one to write > unit tests for the script with various input files, the outcome might > have been different? No. Nice try though.