linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] get_maintainer: Describe supporters and maintainers as required email recipients

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:   Thu, 29 Sep 2022 09:58:09 +0200
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] get_maintainer: Describe supporters and
 maintainers as required email recipients

On 29.09.22 05:29, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 01:24:59AM +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>> The output of get_maintainer.pl doesn't make clear that a supporter is a
>> type of maintainer who should be mailed when generating a patch.
>>
>> In various places in the documentation we make reference to the necessity
>> to remember to include the appropriate maintainers when sending your patch
>> but, we confusingly don't call out supporters as maintainers in our
>> automation utility.
>>
>> Fix that up now by having get_maintainers.pl print 'maintainer[volunteer]'
>> or 'maintainer[supporter]'.
> 
> I really don't think this is correct.  Or at least, I don't think it's
> consistent with how we've historically understood the S: term in the
> MAINTAINERS file. [...]

Hmm, yeah, you are right, I didn't think this trough when suggesting
"maintainer[volunteer]". @Bryan: sorry for leading your in the wrong
direction.

Ciao, Thorsten