Message-ID: <c2dea49d-58c1-4ff3-ac3a-097815c84aec@suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 15:55:00 +0100
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
 Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] get_maintainer: decouple subsystem status from
 maintainer role

On 1/6/25 19:21, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Lo! From the "better reply late than never" department:
> 
> Thx for picking this up again, much appreciated!

Thank you both for the support :)

> On 18.12.24 06:48, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 12:29:22PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>> The script currently uses the subystem's status (S: field) to change how
>>> maintainers are reported. One prominent example is when the status is
>>> Supported, the maintainers are reported as "(supporter:SUBSYSTEM)".
>>>
>>> This is misleading, as the Supported status defined as "Someone is
>>> actually paid to look after this." may not in fact apply to everyone
>>> listed as a maintainer, but only to some of them.
>>>
>>> It has also been confusing people to what "supporter" means and has
>>> required updates to the documentation [1].
>>>
>>> Thus stop applying the subsystem status to change "maintainer:" to
>>> anything else, as maintainers are maintainers. Instead, if the subsystem
>>> status is not the most common one (Maintained), indicate it as part of
>>> the subsystem name. So for example, instead of "(supporter:SUBSYSTEM)"
>>> report "(maintainer:SUBSYSTEM [supported])".
> 
> As Kees mentioned: "funded" might be better. Or is there even a better
> word for this? "backed"? "subsidized"?

Sure we can try find a better word, but in that case it should be applied at
the source, i.e. in MAINTAINERS, not in the script. After my change, the
script stops trying to reinterpret the exact wording from MAINTAINERS anyway.

> When I read this for the first time I thought "it would be better to
> keep the two aspects closer together, e.g.
> "(maintainer[supported]:SUBSYSTEM)". But then I read... (continue below)
> 

<snip>

>> Do we want to change "Supported" to "Funded" to help clear up the
>> meaning? (But yes, I agree, that the subsystem status should be applied
>> to the subsystem, not the individual contacts.)
> 
> ...this and thought: well, the current format of MAINTAINERS applies the
> status to all maintainers,

AFAIU it applies it to subsystems. It defines status e.g. as:

"Supported:   Someone is actually paid to look after this."

See how it says "someone", not "everyone with a M: entry". It's only the
script that's reinterpreting this definition (in a misleading way).

> even is some of them are funded while others
> are not. Changing this would likely require bigger changes. But I'm
> unsure if that is really worth it. Guess not, because it's likely a rare
> case. So I guess the format you chose is the best for now.

Agree. It should be enough to indicate to the submitter that "someone is
paid" and thus one of the M: people CC'd is hopefully more likely to respond
than if nobody is paid.
But I guess the biggest utility here is rather on the other side, i.e.
indicating "Orphan" or "Obsolete" can be a heads up wrt expectations of a reply.

> Thx again for doing this, I like it.

Thanks, will resubmit then as the original timing was quite close to
holidays. Will also look at indicating the subsystem status for reviewers
and mailing lists too (as I said, "Orphan" will likely not have an M: entry
which would carry the status in the first place), since nobody fluent in
Perl has volunteered :)

> Ciao, Thorsten

Powered by blists - more mailing lists