From: Florian Mickler Subject: Re: rfc: rewrite commit subject line for subsystem maintainer preference tool Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:37:07 +0100 Lines: 59 Message-ID: <20101116183707.179964dd@schatten.dmk.lab> References: <20101115134939.GC12986@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <1289840957.16461.138.camel@Joe-Laptop> <20101115173031.GI12986@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <1289842444.16461.140.camel@Joe-Laptop> <20101115182708.GJ12986@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <1289845830.16461.149.camel@Joe-Laptop> <20101115190738.GF3338@sirena.org.uk> <1289848458.16461.150.camel@Joe-Laptop> <20101115193407.GK12986@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <1289850773.16461.166.camel@Joe-Laptop> <20101116104921.GL12986@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <1289919077.28741.50.camel@Joe-Laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Mark Brown , Jiri Kosina , Andrew Morton , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Joe Perches X-From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Nov 16 18:37:57 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: glk-linux-kernel-3@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PIPTh-0007Ey-5Q for glk-linux-kernel-3@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:37:57 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756054Ab0KPRhi (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:37:38 -0500 Received: from ist.d-labs.de ([213.239.218.44]:44291 "EHLO mx01.d-labs.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754101Ab0KPRhh (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:37:37 -0500 Received: from schatten.dmk.lab (f053209081.adsl.alicedsl.de [78.53.209.81]) by mx01.d-labs.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1EB9E7FFD4; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:36:55 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <1289919077.28741.50.camel@Joe-Laptop> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6cvs31 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 06:51:17 -0800 Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 10:49 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:52:53AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 19:34 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > It appears your scripts are already hooked into get_maintainers.pl which > > > > would seem the obvious place to do this? Sadly I don't do perl, though > > > > it looks like you're doing pretty much all the work on that anyway. > > > Sadly, no it's not the right place. > > To query MAINTAINERS? I'd assume that's where you'd want to put that > > stuff? > > I trimmed cc's and added Andrew Morton and Florian Mickler. > First thread link for them: http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/11/15/262 > > I use get_maintainer to find email addresses with > "git send-email --cc-cmd=" but sure it could be extended > to find some other new information in the MAINTAINERS file. > > Anyway, I think that get_maintainers isn't the proper tool > to rewrite commit subject lines, though it could certainly > do the lookup of a key in the MAINTAINERS file. > > Maybe add a new MAINTAINERS section line something like: > "C: CommitSubjectGrammarStyle" > where CommitSubjectGrammarStyle is something more > information rich than "style 1", "style 2". > > Perhaps you'll propose a grammar to convert path to header > and go through and add these "C:" style entries to the > sections you maintain. > > Also, what would you expect the output to be when a single > patch modified files from 2 subsystems that use different > styles? > > cheers, Joe > My first reaction to this is, it's silly. Certainly a subsystem-maintainer is capable of hacking something together that suits his needs or may just use a good editor to get the job done. After all, he might want to edit the commit message anyway. Also he has to have his act together for all non-conforming submitters anyway, because shurely, telling people to re-edit their patches subject line is not what one would consider "welcoming to newbies", or whatever it is kernel subsystem maintainers have to be nowadays *g*... On second thought, if that facility existed, i think nobody would mind it either. So, why not. I don't see a way to specify what to do with cross-subsystem patches though. (MAINTAINERS seems to be the logical place to put this information.) Regards, Flo