linux-kernel - Re: get_maintainers.pl is rude, was Re: [PATCH 05/19] USB: inode.c: move assignment out of if () block

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: <1430574739.23252.5.camel@perches.com>
Date:	Sat, 02 May 2015 06:52:19 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: get_maintainers.pl is rude, was Re: [PATCH 05/19] USB: inode.c:
 move assignment out of if () block

On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 14:54 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Joe, can you please fix your bloody script to not report me for every
> goddamnt file I touched once?

For files that have no specific maintainer, the
default period for reporting commit sign-offs and
authors as possible interested parties in a patch is
1 year.

And given how little my sweet wife likes me when I
swear around her, I'm not inclined to do that
specifically for you, no.

> Authorship of changes to a file is
> a completely wrong metric..

That was Andrew Morton's idea.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/10/17/460

> I can see the point to guess it by
> non-maintainer signoffs, but authorship is plain wrong and highly
> annoying.

That's an assertion, but you've neglected to give
a rationale for it.  I think authorship is quite a
good reason to be cc'd on something as given that
you've spent the effort to originate code, you're
also quite likely to be interested in patches for
that code.

> If you're unwilling to fix this please at least add a get_maintainers.ignore
> file and add me as the first entry.  Thanks!

If a get_maintainers.ignore file is created,
(which seems like a reasonable idea, thanks),
I'm not maintaining it.

Maybe this: (if you create a .get_maintainer.ignore file
with your name in it like)

$ cat .get_maintainer.ignore
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
$
---
 scripts/get_maintainer.pl | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)

diff --git a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
index d701627..fc169fd 100755
--- a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
+++ b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
@@ -186,6 +186,27 @@ if (-f $conf) {
     unshift(@ARGV, @conf_args) if @conf_args;
 }
 
+my @ignore_emails = ();
+my $ignore_file = which_conf(".get_maintainer.ignore");
+if (-f $ignore_file) {
+    open(my $ignore, '<', "$ignore_file")
+	or warn "$P: Can't find a readable .get_maintainer.ignore file $!\n";
+    while (<$ignore>) {
+	my $line = $_;
+
+	$line =~ s/\s*\n?$//;
+	$line =~ s/^\s*//;
+	$line =~ s/\s+$//;
+	$line =~ s/#.*$//;
+
+	next if ($line =~ m/^\s*$/);
+	if (rfc822_valid($line)) {
+	    push(@ignore_emails, $line);
+	}
+    }
+    close($ignore);
+}
+
 if (!GetOptions(
 		'email!' => \$email,
 		'git!' => \$email_git,
@@ -513,6 +534,16 @@ if ($web) {
 
 exit($exit);
 
+sub ignore_email_address {
+    my ($address) = @_;
+
+    foreach my $ignore (@ignore_emails) {
+	return 1 if ($ignore eq $address);
+    }
+
+    return 0;
+}
+
 sub range_is_maintained {
     my ($start, $end) = @_;
 
@@ -1868,6 +1899,7 @@ sub vcs_assign {
 	my $percent = $sign_offs * 100 / $divisor;
 
 	$percent = 100 if ($percent > 100);
+	next if (ignore_email_address($line));
 	$count++;
 	last if ($sign_offs < $email_git_min_signatures ||
 		 $count > $email_git_max_maintainers ||




--
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/