Re: [PATCH 4/4] scripts/move_maintainer_sections.bash

From	Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH 4/4] scripts/move_maintainer_sections.bash
Date	2017-08-09 02:40 +0200
Message-ID	<ucnct-7Op-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<ubiRz-4c2-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <ubiRA-4c2-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <ubTHs-3b4-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <uchA6-3Kf-35@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, 2017-08-08 at 11:33 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-08-05 at 18:45 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > Move MAINTAINERS into a separate directory and reorder it.
> > > Separate various blocks of MAINTAINER sections into separate files.
> > 
> > Hey Linus.
> > 
> > If/when you try this out, do please let me know what
> > you think.
> 
> Ok, I've applied the preparatory patches, but not run the script.
> 
> Or rather, I ran the script to see what happens, but I'm not going to
> push the end result.
> 
> From a quick look at the end result, I note:
> 
>  - the arch maintainer split is pointless. It ends up being just one
> entry per architecture

I think that's just preliminary.

Many of the arches have a single maintainer and many
of the drivers specific to that arch could/should be
moved into the arch_<foo> file.

But that doesn't seem easily scriptable.

> for x86_64 not even that (because the x86> pattern matched all of
> them)

What x86_64 section is that?  There isn't an arch/x86_64
directory and only 1 combined entry for x86 and x86_64.

>  - the two arch maintainer lists that end up being bigger is x86 and
> arm, but the x86 one picked up a log of misleading ones (not just PCI:
> EFI, various random other things too)

Yeah, it's imperfect.  Suggestions welcomed.

>  - they all end up having the empty line at the top because of how the
> parse-maintainers.pl script works.

That's because I was a bit lazy about the output.
	awk '{ if (NR > 1) { print; } }'
would fix it.

Also a 00-README type file for the introductory section
could be useful.

> But *some* of it looks really nice.
> 
> The other thing I note is that the way the patches look, this is going
> to be a disaster to merge with any other work - and there really tends
> to be a lot of things touching MAINTAINERS.

It is going to be messy.
Once done it should be easier though.

Even today there's a merge conflict (kinda) with -next and
the alphabetic
reordering movement as one of the sections
is duplicated again. (SYNC
FILE FRAMEWORK)

Collecting the remainder MAINTAINERS patches after an -rc1
and applying them with a quilt like merge might help too
if Andrew feels up to it.

> I'll have to think about it.
> 
> But at least the infrastructure patches are applied,

Thanks.

Thread

[PATCH 0/4] Scripted update of the MAINTAINERS files Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2017-08-06 03:50 +0200
  [PATCH 4/4] scripts/move_maintainer_sections.bash Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2017-08-06 03:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 4/4] scripts/move_maintainer_sections.bash Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2017-08-07 19:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 4/4] scripts/move_maintainer_sections.bash Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-08-08 20:40 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 4/4] scripts/move_maintainer_sections.bash Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2017-08-09 02:40 +0200
  [PATCH 2/4] parse-maintainers: Use perl hash references and specific filenames Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2017-08-06 03:50 +0200
  [PATCH 3/4] parse-maintainers: Move matching sections from MAINTAINERS Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2017-08-06 03:50 +0200

csiph-web