[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: RFC: append reason for cc to the name by default
    On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:44:41 -0400
    Ted Ts'o <> wrote:

    > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 04:57:48PM +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
    > >
    > > Would in essence have the same effect, but I think it's slightly better
    > > to have some shorter tags in the mail addresses, as I expect them to
    > > actually show up on lkml quite a bit.
    > What if there are no tags on mail addresses that come from the
    > MAINTAINERS file, but only tags on the mail addresses that come from
    > guessing wildly based on git sign-offs? People should just be looking
    > in the MAINTAINERS file, after all, and I don't think that's something
    > that needs an explanation.
    > The thing that needs explanation is when someone like Steve Hemminger
    > gets cc'ed on a patch for fs/ext4/acl.c, which really makes no sense
    > at all, where you desperately need some kind of tag:
    > (Wild guess using --git)
    > - Ted

    Might make sense to omit the tags on the MAINTAINER-source. I can
    agree to your reasoning there.

    As far as I can see, the use and the use cases for the git-part of are mostly to get patches to not-so-well-maintained
    parts of the tree upstream. What I envision for the git part is a
    scoring based classification scheme that uses all readily available
    information of the git-history to determine relevant people for patch
    review and patch routing.

    I already have implemented a small parser that extracts that information
    out of git-log and makes them available to the script, but didn't have
    time to wire it up yet.

    Another improvement (beyond finding a decent heuristic based on the
    artifacts 'authorship', 'signed-off-by', 'reviewed-by', 'acked-by',
    'committer' and nr-of-lines-changed.. and maybe time) is probably to
    not make an arbitrarily 1-Year-Back cut-off, but to check the last N
    commits on that region of the tree. (I'm thinking of the more
    "settled down" areas of the tree here)
    But let's see what I come up with...


     \ /
      Last update: 2010-09-27 20:11    [W:0.021 / U:47.872 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site