linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scripts/get_maintainer.pl: default to not include unspecified tags

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: <20100511074833.GC24844@pengutronix.de>
Date:	Tue, 11 May 2010 09:48:33 +0200
From:	Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
To:	florian@...kler.org
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts/get_maintainer.pl: default to not include
	unspecified tags

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 08:36:36AM +0200, florian@...kler.org wrote:
> This changes the default of the option --git-all-signature-types to be
> disabled by default.
> 
> The effect being, that only certain (currently  Signed-Off-By:,
> Acked-By: and Reviewed-By:) tags are used to get adresses of potential
> maintainers.
> 
> Motivated is this change by the desire to not 'spam' people unnecessary:
> A Tested-By or a Reported-By is not ment as a hint that those people
> want to/are able to review patches to the code in question.
> 
> In a quest to find resilient statistics for this i came up with this:
> 
> I produced a list of all the tag-signers not already covered
> with a signed-off/acked/reviewed tag somewhere in the last year of git history.
> 
> Those were 650 addresses of "assumed non-developers".
> 
> And to check if those "assumed non-developers" are professional
> testers/reporters worth cc'ing, i then counted their total appearences
> in the git log:
> 
> 469 were mentioned only once.
> 123 were mentioned twice.
> 38 three times
> 8 four times
> 5 six times
> 5 five times
> 1 eight times
> 1 fourteen times
> 
> I believe this supports my thesis, that the ''non-maintainer-tags'' are
> not actively useful for patch-review. (except probably the guy
> mentioned fourteen times...)
> 
> But of course one could also find arguments to poke holes in this
> statistics, for example does this statistic not include code-locality:
> A tested-by on a patch that touches some specific piece of
> code can be more worth than a signed-off in another part of the tree.
> 
> But... let's play it safe and let's err on the "safe" side
> meaning to not spam those people when in doubt. We already have the
> signed-off's and Maintainers file. So this should be ok. And if need be, 
> the maintainers can always forward the patch.
> 
> [i probably could make a diploma thesis out of this changelog :)]

:D

> 
> Signed-off-by: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>

I second this reasoning:

Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)