Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] scripts/get_maintainer.pl: add interactive mode | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:38:52 -0700 |
| |
On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 23:53 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote: > On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:43:08 -0700 > Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > > #(toggle), A#(author), S#(signed) *(all), ^(none), O(options), Y(approve): > I don't think the descriptions on the bottom are that descriptive. Nor > can they be. There should probably be just a quick primer like: > "([N]+:select) ([N]-:deselect) ([N]?:toggle infos) (Y:approve) (h:help)" > and on "h" a long description gets displayed.
We disagree. There could be a useful "H" help option.
> > Because git history is now not searched by default > > when there is a named maintainer, there are no > > commit signers. > > Don't know if this is intuitive. If there is the possibility to have > them shown but not selected, that would be ideal as it relieves the > user from pressing extra keys while still having a sane behaviour.
Use a command line option: --git.
All command line options apply to create the initial list of displayed names.
Or add code to set
$git-fallback = 1 if $interactive;
> > > > If the "G" option is entered, you get: > > > > #(toggle), A#(author), S#(signed) *(all), ^(none), O(options), Y(approve): g > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > * # email/list and role:stats auth sign > > * 1 Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org> 1 0 > > maintainer:SKGE, SKY2 10/100...,commit_signer:38/69=55% > > 2 "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> 7 57 > > commit_signer:57/69=83% > > 3 Mike McCormack <mikem@ring3k.org> 16 16 > > commit_signer:16/69=23% > > 4 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> 4 4 > > commit_signer:4/69=6% > > * 5 netdev@vger.kernel.org > > open list:SKGE, SKY2 10/100... > > * 6 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > open list > > I would try to fit reviewed-by in the statistics on the right, because > that actually says a bit about the ability and willingness to review > code...
I think it's not worth it.
Only about 2% of signatures in git history are reviewed-by:
Using S shows the signature type.
Over the last year: $ git log --since=1-year-ago | grep -i "by:.*@" | \ cut -f1 -d":" | sort -i | uniq -ci | sort -rn | head -10 83413 Signed-off-by 6544 Acked-by 2022 Reviewed-by 1691 Reported-by 1065 Tested-by 111 Reported-and-tested-by 83 Suggested-by 31 Requested-by 28 Signed-off-by 26 Fixed-by
> [snip menu parsing code] > > That should probably go in an extra function and be slimmed down, like > I did in a later version I sent you.
Maybe. I think it doesn't matter much though. Menu handling code tends to get long.
> > +sub bool_invert { > > + my ($bool_ref) = @_; > > + > > + if ($$bool_ref) { > > + $$bool_ref = 0; > > + } else { > > + $$bool_ref = 1; > > + } > +} > > That should just be $$bool_ref = !$$bool_ref (and probably not a > function)
I think it needs to be a function. I want a 0 or 1, not "" or 1.
| |