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]

Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 13:36:48 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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 13:13:11 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 at 13:03, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > IOW solving the _actually_ missing CCs is higher priority for me.  
> 
> You have the script. It's already being run. Use it.
> 
> Having scripting that complains about missing Cc's, even *lists* them,
> and then requires a human to do something about it - that's stupid.

Just so I fully understand what you're saying - what do you expect me
to do? Send the developer a notifications saying "please repost" with
this CC list? How is that preferable to making them do it right the
first time?!

The script in patchwork *just runs get_maintainer on the patch*:

https://github.com/kuba-moo/nipa/blob/master/tests/patch/cc_maintainers/test.py#L58

And developers also *already* *run* get_maintainer, they just need to 
be nudged to prefer running it on the patch rather than on the path.

And no, Joe's position that this is "just a documentation problem"
does not survive crash with reality because we already documented:

Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:

  scripts/get_maintainer.pl can be very useful at this step (pass paths
  to your patches as arguments to scripts/get_maintainer.pl).

Documentation/process/3.Early-stage.rst:

 If passed a patch on the command line, it will list the maintainers
 who should probably receive copies of the patch.  This is the
 preferred way (unlike "-f" option) to get the list of people to Cc for
 your patches.

> Why are you using computers and automation in the first place, if said
> automation then just makes for more work?

Writing and maintaining that automation is also damn work. We complain
nobody wants to be a maintainer and then refuse to make maintainers'
life's easier :|

> Then requiring inexperienced developers to do those extra things,
> knowing - and not caring - that the experienced ones won't even
> bother, that goes from stupid to actively malicious.
> 
> And then asking me to change my workflow because I use a different
> script that does exactly what I want - that takes "stupid and
> malicious" to something where I will just ignore you.
> 
> In other words: those changes to get_maintainer are simply not going to happen.
> 
> Fix your own scripts, and fix your bad workflows.
> 
> Your bad workflow not only makes it harder for new people to get
> involved, they apparently waste your *own* time so much that you are
> upset about it all.
> 
> Don't shoot yourself in the foot - and if you insist on doing so,
> don't ask *others* to join you in your self-destructive tendencies.

No idea what you mean by "my workflow". But yeah, I kind of expected
that this patch would be a waste of time. Certain problems only become
clear with sufficient volume of patches, and I'm clearly incapable
of explaining shit.