linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] How to (automatically) find the correct maintainer(s)

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]

Message-ID: <45ABCA64.6000000@student.ltu.se>
Date:	Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:39:32 +0100
From:	Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>
To:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] How to (automatically) find the correct maintainer(s)

Stefan Richter wrote:
> On 14 Jan, Richard Knutsson wrote:
>   
>> Stefan Richter wrote:
>>     
>>> May I remind that whoever uses scripts to figure out contacts should
>>> better double-check what the script found out for him.
>>>       
> [...]
>   
>> During development, that's a given. But I would hope that when its more 
>> stable it will always find the right answer or no answer at all (if 
>> there is errors in ex MAINTAINERS, even the human will bother the receiver)
>>     
>
> Note, if people build scripts which look up contacts, I hope they don't
> become careless and forget to search elsewhere for proper contacts if
> _no_ contact was found automatically.
>   
Maybe the script may print out some pointers for such a case ;)
> [...]
>   
>>> It is already somewhat
>>> costly to backtrack .c files from .o files from config options, but
>>> considerably more so with .h files.
>>>
>>>       
>> I think it is to early to be thinking about what is easier, first a 
>> "algorithm" that does what we want is needed, then I'm more then happy 
>> to write a script/program for it :)
>> Costly?? It is even simple in bash:
>> C_FILE=${O_FILE/'.o'/'.c'}
>>     
>
> When I wrote "somewhat costly" I didn't refer to a 1:1 mapping between
> .c and .o. That's not what it takes. I mostly referred to having to
> implement a parser for parts of the Linux Makefile language. On the
> bright side, the more indirection you introduce, the less people will
> write their own scripts and the less scripts with bugs will be out
> there. :-)
>
>   
Oh, yes so it is. But I don't think it will be too much. But do you have 
any objections on the last proposal (to include "I:"), otherwise I 
thinking of trying to implement it (thinking of Perl, any reason to not 
do so?) to see if it can stand real usage.

Hope so (on bugs that is, always fun with scripts) :)
> [...]
>   
>> (I: for "include". Btw, what is F: standing for? Is it instead of P:?)
>>     
> [...]
>
> Doesn't need to be F. "Files" happens to start with F.
>   
Doh, was in the track of "pathway" or such...

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/