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]

Message-ID: <b119fee5-807f-1940-3378-f5ad638794f5@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 30 Sep 2022 17:18:52 +0100
From:   Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
To:     Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>
Cc:     corbet@....net, konstantin@...uxfoundation.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@...mhuis.info, tytso@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters
 should be mailed

On 30/09/2022 15:47, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 07:46:29 +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>> Recently when submitting a yaml change I found that I had omitted the
>> maintainer whose tree the change needed to go through.
>>
>> The reason for that is the path in MAINTAINERS is marked as Supported not
>> Maintained. Reading MAINTAINERS we see quote:
>>
>>             Supported:   Someone is actually paid to look after this.
>>             Maintained:  Someone actually looks after it.
>>
>> The current submitting-patches.rst only says to mail maintainers though not
>> supporters. When we run scripts/get_maintainer.pl anybody who is denoted a
>> paid maintainer will appear as a supporter.
> 
> So the root cause of your confusion was you couldn't figure out
> the fact that "supporter" in the output of get_maintainver.pl means
> "maintainer of a supported subsystem", wasn't it?
> 
> I guess all you need would be just a short notice along the lines of:
> 
>      "supporter" in the output from get_maintainer.pl means "maintainer
>      of a supported subsystem".
> 
> No?

We discussed that a bit earlier.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220928003006.230103-1-bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org/T/#u
https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/9/28/1394
https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/9/28/1511
https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/9/29/188

I think its fair to say the consensus so far is to leave the 
get_maintainer.pl output as is.

>>
>> Add text to state that every mail address returned by get_maintainer.pl
>> --nogit-fallback should be included when submitting a patch, giving an
>> example of the same.>
>> Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 12 +++++++++---
>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
>> index be49d8f2601b4..18a1f52e0563a 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
>> @@ -227,9 +227,15 @@ You should always copy the appropriate subsystem maintainer(s) on any patch
>>   to code that they maintain; look through the MAINTAINERS file and the
>>   source code revision history to see who those maintainers are.  The
>>   script scripts/get_maintainer.pl can be very useful at this step (pass paths to
>> -your patches as arguments to scripts/get_maintainer.pl).  If you cannot find a
>> -maintainer for the subsystem you are working on, Andrew Morton
>> -(akpm@...ux-foundation.org) serves as a maintainer of last resort.
>> +your patches as arguments to scripts/get_maintainer.pl).  You should mail every
>> +email address returned by `scripts/get_maintainer.pl --nogit-fallback` when
>> +submitting a patch.
>> +For example::
>> +
>> +    $ scripts/get_maintainer.pl --nogit-fallback -f submitting-patches.rst
>> +    Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> (maintainer:DOCUMENTATION)
>> +    linux-doc@...r.kernel.org (open list:DOCUMENTATION)
>> +    linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org (open list)
> 
> This example has a number of issues...
> 
>   1) The command line doesn't work when run under the top of kernel tree.

Well I didn't want to exceed 80 characters but I have no problem make it 
top level explicit

>   2) The -f flag contradicts the instruction above:
>      (pass paths to your *patches* as arguments to scripts/get_maintainer.pl).

I'm not sure I follow how it contradicts but, I will read it again.

>   3) There can be cases where --git-fallback (default) is useful.

Can you elaborate what your thinking is on that. I'm happy to try to 
include it in the instructions we give.

>   4) The output can change any time.

What does this mean ? The output won't change for a given patch you are 
trying to send.

Do you mean the output of get_maintainer.pl can change ?

It could but, how does that negate the value of documenting what it does 
right now ?

>   5) There is no point in using Jon's actual name and email address.

Sure, I see your point. I'll use a fake email.


> Why not just add a short notice I mentioned above as a first step?

Please see above.

---
bod