lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 2/2] rcu: Add Josh Triplett as designated reviewer
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 06:07:18PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 06/02/2014 05:02 PM, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 01:38:56PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >> On 06/02/2014 01:36 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 13:35 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 10:00:20 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> >>>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> >>>>> @@ -7321,6 +7321,7 @@ F: kernel/rcu/torture.c
> >>>>>
> >>>>> RCUTORTURE TEST FRAMEWORK
> >>>>> M: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>>>> +R: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
> >>>>> L: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> >>>>> S: Supported
> >>>>> T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git
> >>>>
> >>>> I like the general principle - knowing who to poke regarding a kernel
> >>>> change is useful.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't care much whether it's "M:" or "R:", although "R:" carries more
> >>>> meaning and hence is probably better.
> >>>>
> >>>> But why not "Cc:"? That's meaningful too and is more copy-n-paste friendly.
> >>
> >> Josh, what are you assuming that Andrew and I did not?
> >
> > Not sure what you mean here. Responding to the text you quoted: I have
> > no particular need to bikeshed the tag name, so if you prefer "Cc" and
> > can convince get_maintainer.pl to handle it, fine by me.
>
> Sorry, what I meant is that Andrew and I both mentioned copy-paste and
> you replied earlier (and I have already deleted it) that copy-paste shouldn't
> be necessary for someone who is using get_maintainer.pl.
>
> Do you redirect its output to your patch file and then edit it or does
> get_maintainer.pl work with git-send-email or something else? if something
> else, what is it, please?

Oh, I see; that was in text you hadn't quoted, so I didn't know what you
were asking. :)

git send-email can invoke 'scripts/get_maintainer.pl --no-rolestats'
directly via --to-cmd or -cc-cmd; that works fine as long as you don't
have a cover letter.

Depending on the system I'm running on, and whether it's more convenient
to invoke git-send-email or to edit patch mails and send them with 'mutt
-H', I have a shell pipeline which invokes get_maintainer.pl on an
entire patch series, collects all the email addresses it returns, and
inserts them all into each mail as CCs. (That way, when I send a
cross-subsystem patch series, I don't get a pile of maintainers confused
that they only received a couple of the numbered patches.) One example:

{ echo -n "To: " ; for x in *.patch ; do scripts/get_maintainer.pl --no-rolestats < $x | fgrep -v josh@joshtriplett.org ; done | sort -u | sed 's/$/, /;$s/, $//' | tr -d '\n' ; echo ; } | sed -i '/^From:/r/dev/stdin'

Personally, I'd find it handy if one of the following happened:

- git send-email (and ideally also git format-patch) grew an option to
collect *all* the to-cmd and cc-cmd output from each patch and apply
it to every patch (including the cover letter).

- get_maintainer.pl accepted multiple patchfile names and output the
union of the results. Ideally, get_maintainer.pl would also have a -i
option to edit the patch files and insert the addresses in the mail
headers.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-06-03 04:21    [W:0.088 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site