[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230819013303.GA22393@quicinc.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 18:33:04 -0700
From: Guru Das Srinagesh <quic_gurus@...cinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
CC: Guru Das Srinagesh <quic_gurus@...cinc.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>,
"Kees Cook" <keescook@...omium.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>, <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] Add add-maintainer.py script
On Aug 18 2023 10:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> For newcomers, OTOH, I would either recommend simple workflow or just
> >> use b4. Why? Because if you cannot use git-send-email, then it means
> >> your email setup will make your life difficult and adding maintainers to
> >> existing patch won't help you.
> >
> > You've mentioned a "simple workflow" many times - could you please share more
> > details on the steps you follow in your workflow for sending patches?
>
> I shared it on LKML few times already (and Rob's git send-email identity
> is also on LKML), so one more time:
>
> https://github.com/krzk/tools/blob/master/linux/.bash_aliases_linux#L91
Thank you for sharing this - it is really neat indeed and you certainly don't
need a step #2 with this method.
However, I see areas for improvement in the alias:
- Subsystem-specific mailing lists, maintainers, reviewers, and other roles are
all marked as "To: " sans distinction via the alias whereas
`add-maintainer.py` and `b4` both provide marking of lists as "Cc: " which
seems aesthetically and semantically more pleasing.
- Only `add-maintainer.py` allows for maintainers to be selectively in "To: "
and "Cc: " for patches in a series depending on whether they are the
maintainers for that particular patch or not.
> >> This tool depends on the command line and shell interface of
> >> scripts/get_maintainers.pl which is another reason why it might not be a
> >> good idea.
> >
> > Could you please elaborate on why depending on the output of
> > `get_maintainer.pl` is a bad idea? It's what everyone uses, no?
>
> No, because if interface changes you need to update two tools.
But `b4 prep --auto-to-cc` also uses `get_maintainer.pl`!
Also, in your previous email you said to "just use b4", which also depends on
the command line and shell interface of `get_maintainers.pl`. Depending on
`get_maintainer.pl` is therefore perfectly okay - there is no need to reinvent
it or disregard it for whatever reasons.
Thank you.
Guru Das.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists