netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] scripts: get_maintainer: steer people away from using file paths

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: <CAHk-=whCE9cWmTXu54WFQ7x-aH8n=dhCux2h49=pYN=14ybkxg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 12:37:14 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, 
	geert@...ux-m68k.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	workflows@...r.kernel.org, mario.limonciello@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] scripts: get_maintainer: steer people away from using
 file paths

On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 at 12:05, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Except it looks like it might be set up to just complain
> ("netdev/cc_maintainers"). Which seems to be why you're complaining.
>
> IOW, you're complaining about *another* tool, because your own tool
> use is set up to complain instead of being helpful.

The very first case I actually looked at wasn't even some
"inexperienced developer" - the kind you claim is the problem, and the
kind you claim this would help.

It was a random fix from Florian Westphal, who has been around for
more than a decade, is credited with over 1500 commits (and mentioned
in many many more), and knows what he's doing.

He has a patch that references a "Fixes:" line, and clearly didn't go
through the get_maintainer script as such, and the
netdev/cc_maintainers script complains as a result.

So Jakub, I think you are barking *entirely* up the wrong tree.

The reason you blame this on mis-use by inexperienced maintainers is
that you probably never even react to the experienced ones that do the
very same things, because you trust them and never bother to tell them
"you didn't use get_maintainers to get the precise list of people that
patchwork complains about".

So the problem is not in get_maintainers. It's in having expectations
that are simply not realistic.

You seem to think that those inexperienced developers should do something that

 (a) experienced developers don't do *EITHER*

 (b) the scripts complain about instead of just doing

and then you think that changing get_maintainers would somehow hide the issue.

You definitely shouldn't require inexperienced developers to do
something that clearly experienced people then don't do.

Now, maybe I happened to just randomly pick a patchwork entry that was
very unusual. But I doubt it.

           Linus