linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters should be mailed

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 2 Oct 2022 09:27:59 +0900
From:   Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>
To:     Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
Cc:     corbet@....net, konstantin@...uxfoundation.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@...mhuis.info,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters
 should be mailed

On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 11:37:03 +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 01/10/2022 03:37, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> FWIW, I actually think the output of get_maintainer.pl is pretty
>> broken in this regard.  (Then again, I've never thought all that
>> highly of get_maintainer.pl,*especially*  because of the bogus git
>> fallback, but that's another story.)
>>
>> Consider:
>>
>> % ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --file  drivers/acpi/power.c
>> "Rafael J. Wysocki"<rafael@...nel.org>  (supporter:ACPI)
>> Len Brown<lenb@...nel.org>  (reviewer:ACPI)
>> linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org  (open list:ACPI)
>> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org  (open list)
>>
>> I'm sorry, but that's just*wrong*.  Rafael is the*maintainer*  of the
>> ACPI subsystem, and the term "supporter" is rarely if ever used
>> anywhere in our docs.  As I said earlier, trying to treat S: field to
>> say anything about the entitles listed under the M: field of the
>> Maintainers file is a category error.
> 
> I agree, I made exactly this error.
> 
> I wasn't sure how people would necessarily feel about having
> get_maintainer produce the string 'maintainer' for both Maintained and
> Supported but, IMO it is more consistent to have it do so, since we refer
> to maintainers all throughout the doucmentation and as you say above Rafael
> is the person you *need* to mail there because he's the maintainer.

You'd better CC Joe Perches, who is the maintainer of get_maintainer.pl.
You might want to start a new thread with a different subject.
The main point becomes the behavior of get_maintainer.pl.

> 
> Lets consider
> 
> - maintainer as a string for "S: Supported"
> - Documentation update to reflect Krzysztof's point on git-fallback

Sounds reasonable to me.
Good luck!

Thanks,
Akira

> 
> ---
> bod