Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1256866 > unrolled thread

[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-10-27 16:50 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org> - 2015-10-27 18:30 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-10-27 19:20 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2015-10-27 19:50 +0100
          Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> - 2015-10-28 02:50 +0100
            Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-10-28 09:40 +0100
              Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@dowhile0.org> - 2015-10-28 10:30 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@dowhile0.org> - 2015-10-28 10:30 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> - 2015-10-28 10:40 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-10-28 11:30 +0100
                  Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@dowhile0.org> - 2015-10-28 12:00 +0100
                    Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2015-10-28 12:10 +0100
                      Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@dowhile0.org> - 2015-10-28 12:30 +0100
                        Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-10-28 12:40 +0100
                          Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-10-28 13:20 +0100
                            Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2015-10-28 13:30 +0100
                              Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-10-28 13:30 +0100
                                Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2015-10-28 13:50 +0100
                            Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@dowhile0.org> - 2015-10-28 14:10 +0100
                              Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-10-28 14:40 +0100
                                Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-10-28 15:40 +0100
                                  Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@dowhile0.org> - 2015-10-28 16:00 +0100
                                  Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> - 2015-10-29 01:00 +0100
                                    Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@dowhile0.org> - 2015-10-29 01:20 +0100
                                      Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-10-30 18:00 +0100
                                    Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-10-30 18:00 +0100
                                Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@dowhile0.org> - 2015-10-28 15:40 +0100
              Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> - 2015-10-28 10:30 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Uwe Kleine-König   <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> - 2015-10-28 10:40 +0100
                  Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-10-28 11:00 +0100
                    Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> - 2015-10-28 14:20 +0100
                      [PATCH] get_maintainer: Add subsystem to reviewer output Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2015-10-28 17:50 +0100
                        Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Add subsystem to reviewer output Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-10-28 18:10 +0100
                          Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Add subsystem to reviewer output Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2015-10-28 18:10 +0100
                            Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Add subsystem to reviewer output Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-10-28 18:30 +0100
                              Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Add subsystem to reviewer output Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2015-10-28 18:40 +0100
                                Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Add subsystem to reviewer output Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-10-28 18:50 +0100
                                  Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Add subsystem to reviewer output Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2015-10-28 19:00 +0100
                                    Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Add subsystem to reviewer output Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-10-29 10:30 +0100
                                      Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Add subsystem to reviewer output Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2015-10-29 15:20 +0100
                                        Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Add subsystem to reviewer output Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-10-29 17:20 +0100
                          Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Add subsystem to reviewer output Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2015-10-28 18:20 +0100
                        Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Add subsystem to reviewer output Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> - 2015-10-29 00:50 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-10-28 11:20 +0100
                  Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> - 2015-10-28 14:30 +0100
                    Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-10-28 14:50 +0100
              Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com> - 2015-10-28 17:30 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-10-28 17:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com> - 2015-10-28 10:00 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#1258188

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Lee Jones wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Hello Joe,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 11:53 +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> >> >> > >> (Lee) think(s) that the difference between a maintainer and
> >> >> > >> a reviewer is if a branch with fixes / new features are kept and pull
> >> >> > >> requests sent while I think that the difference is the level of
> >> >> > >> involvement someone has with a driver regardless of how patches ends
> >> >> > >> in the subsystem tree (picked directly by subsystem maintainers or
> >> >> > >> sent through pull requests).
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Is the first time I heard your definition but maybe I'm the one that
> >> >> > >> is wrong so it would be great to get a consensus on that and get it
> >> >> > >> documented somewhere.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I think Lee is over-analyzing.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > From MAINTAINERS:
> >> >> > >         M: Mail patches to: FullName <address@domain>
> >> >> > >         R: Designated reviewer: FullName <address@domain>
> >> >> > >            These reviewers should be CCed on patches.
> >> >> > >         S: Status, one of the following:
> >> >> > >            Supported:   Someone is actually paid to look after this.
> >> >> > >            Maintained:  Someone actually looks after it.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > "looking after" doesn't mean upstreaming.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Agreed and upstreaming doesn't mean sending pull request, you can for
> >> >> > example upstream the downstream changes for a driver you maintain by
> >> >> > posting patches or ack patches others post and let the subsystem
> >> >> > maintainer to pick those (even if you are listed as the driver
> >> >> > maintainer in MAINTAINERS).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So by following Lee's definition, then most drivers' maintainers
> >> >> > should not be called maintainers since keeping a tree with patches for
> >> >> > both fixes and new features, sending pull requests, etc is only
> >> >> > justified for drivers that have a lot of changes per release. Is not
> >> >> > worth it for drivers that are in "maintenance mode" where only bugs
> >> >> > are fixed every once in a while or features are seldom added.
> >> >>
> >> >> Exactly right.
> >> >>
> >> >> Although, it looks like M: doesn't even mean Maintainer.  If it did, I
> >> >> would have made these points over and over until death (or until I got
> >> >> bored).  However, as M: actually means "Mail patches to", there seems
> >> >> to be very little difference between that and "Designated reviewer"
> >> >> and makes me wonder why the R: tag was ever even introduced.  I guess
> >> >> all of the other guys in the threads below also thought M: meant
> >> >> Maintainer, or else they would have just added poor old Josh as a
> >> >> "Mail patches to" recipient and been done with it.
> >> >
> >> > Ah, but wait.  get_maintainer.pl *does* assume M means Maintainer
> >> > doesn't it?  Which is why this came about.  So if we have a "Mail
> >> > patches to" entry, get_maintainer.pl tells the user that this is a
> >>
> >> Joe already answered but I'll elaborate a little bit:
> >>
> >> "M:" means "Mail patches to" and "S:" means "Status" so what
> >> get_maintainers.pl is reports the person in "M:" printing the status
> >> of the file(s).
> >>
> >> So for example if the file has "S: Supported" then the person listed
> >> in "M:" is shown as "supporter" while if the status is "S:
> >> Maintained", the person is listed as "maintainer".
> >>
> >> There isn't a "Reviewed" status to specify files that are looked by
> >> "Designated reviewers", it can be added but I don't see the reason of
> >> it.
> >
> > Not sure why you wrote all of this.  We know *why* get_maintainer.pl
> > does what it does.  What I'm saying is, that I personally believe this
> > is the wrong behaviour in what I'm *guessing* is the majority of the
> > time.
> 
> Ok sorry if it was clear to you already.

NP.

> >> > Maintainer, which (given that there are over 1000 unique M: entries
> >> > and I know that there are no where near that many actual Maintainers)
> >> > means that it's printing out incorrect information most of the time.
> >>
> >> Well, that's correct according to your definition of maintainer
> >> (people with a tree that sends pull requests) but I can believe that
> >> there are 1K unique maintainers for different small components
> >> (without taking into account what components may be obsolete / not
> >> used anymore) even if these maintainers don't send pull request
> >> because the patch load is low and rely on subsystem maintainers to
> >> pick directly from the list with their Acks.
> >
> > Then they are not Maintainers.  They are Reviewers who rely on
> > Maintainers.  In your example above it's the Maintainers that are
> > Maintainers and the people who review the code are Reviewers.  The
> > clues are in the words. ;)
> 
> They are not maintainers according to your definition of maintainer
> that doesn't seem what most people agree with.

"most people" so far are 3 people that I assume still want to be
Maintainers despite not actually conducting Maintainer duties, but
are rather Reviewers.  I also have 2 Acks for this patch, so thus far
that's 3 that agree and 3 that do not.  Unsurprisingly the ones that
agree are Maintainers and the ones who are not are (by my definition)
Reviewers -- go figure.

> >> For me the maintainer is that a) cares about the file and makes sure
> >> that things remain working, fix issues, reviews patches from others,
> >> etc b) is someone that actually understand the code in the files. A
> >> subsystem maintainer has the last word of what gets merged into the
> >> subsystem but may not be familiar with code under the subsystem and
> >> relies on the file / driver maintainer to Ack the patch as correct
> >> since that person is the one that knows the code.
> >
> > Then what is a Reviewer?
> 
> As I mentioned before, I think a reviewer is someone who is interested
> in a given file / driver / subsystem and reviews patches to the list
> but does not have an authoritative answer on that file. I gave as an
> example that I review patches posted for Exynos SoC support although
> I'm not mentioned in MAINTAINERS and I don't plan it to be. People
> don't know that I'm interested in that and don't cc me, I just review
> what is posted to the linux-samsung-soc ML.

*sigh* I've explained this (to you directly) before.  What you explain
here is just someone that occasionally reviews code.  Anyone can do
that, it doesn't make them a "Designated reviewer" and doesn't warrant
listing in MAINTAINERS.  A Reviewer (note the capitalisation whenever
I use the term like this) is someone who has volunteered or has been
identified as someone to conduct all of the duties you've mentioned
before.

So my question still stands.  What is a Reviewer in the context of the
MAINTAINERS file.  I'm suggesting that this is the title you give
someone when they; know the code, care about the code, review changes
to the code and possibly test the code (if they have the h/w).  I also
suggest they to not apply patches, maintain an upstream branch and
submit pull-requests to Linus or another senior Maintainer.

> A designated reviewer is someone that is mentioned in the MAINTAINERS
> file so people know that this person is interested and will add
> him/her as cc. So designated reviewers are expected to review more
> patches, be more available, etc

Right.  So how is this any different to what you're proposing is
actually a Maintainer?  I suggest the traits are the same.

> and it seems the idea is that they can
> become maintainers in the future if there is some need for it.

You just made that bit up. ;)

> >> > So back to my original thought then, what can we do to rectify this
> >> > situation and make the information printed more meaningful.  Again,
> >> > I'm back to using the R: tag appropriately.
> >> >
> >> > Any (technical, which aren't based on "but I really want to be listed
> >> > as a Maintainer") thoughts?
> >> >
> >>
> >> I haven't read a "but I really want to be listed as a maintainer"
> >> thought in this thread.
> >
> > If you had no vested interest in this, you would be able to see the
> > logic in what I'm saying.  Again I'm *guess*, but I think there is
> > some emotional reasons for you pushing back so hard.  I could always
> > be wrong though.
> >
> 
> Oh, I have no personal interest. I'm not even listed as a maintainer /
> reviewer for anything that is MFD related and I do understand your
> point is just that I don't agree. The fact that we disagree doesn't
> mean that you are right and I'm wrong.

Nor visa versa. ;)

> So if anything I think this thread is more about "but I really don't
> want people without a tree to be listed as a Maintainer".

This is 'really' about Maintainers being listed as Maintainers and
Reviewers being listed as Reviewers.  It doesn't get any simple or
logical than that.  I have no emotional attachment to either my
reasoning nor the patch.  It just makes sense.

> What I do care is about consistency across different subystems since
> the kernel development process is already complicated and there are
> already differences in the workflow of the maintainers so people
> contributing to many subsystems have to first do some research to
> learn all the unwritten rules and conventions of a given susbystem and
> subsystem maintainer before posting patches.

Amen to that.  And wouldn't life be simpler if submitters knew who
is likely to review their code and who is likely to apply it?

> That's why adding the semantics of maintainers and reviewers to the
> mix of things to keep in mind is not something that thrills me.

The semantics are already there.  They've been accepted by some pretty
senior Maintainers already.  What we're doing here is just using those
accepted semantics.

> >> I think the problem is the definition of what a maintainer in Linux
> >> really means. For you is someone that keeps a tree and sends pull
> >> request (for me that is what I call a subsystem maintainer)
> >
> > Right.  A Level 3 Maintainer sends pull-requests to a Level 2
> > Maintainer, who sends pull-requests to a Level 1 Maintainer, who sends
> > pull-requests to Linus.  Maintainers at *all* levels collect patches
> > and Maintain them before sending on.
> >
> 
> Here is where we disagree (and it seems is not only me), someone who
> acks patches posted to some files even if those are later picked for
> someone higher in the maintenance hierarchy could be named maintainers
> as well since they "own" those files and their answer should be
> authoritative (no matter how the patches end into mainline).
> 
> At the end of the day is to make easier for developers to understand
> who are the interested parties for a given change. It is much easier
> to think in terms of different levels of maintainers that should be
> copied so they can review and possibly people outside of that group if
> they are subscribed to the mailing lists. Naming the first levels
> reviewers makes no sense for me since it will only confuse new comers
> IMHO.

There's no level of Reviewer.  They are not under the Maintainers in
any way.  They do a different role and serve a different purpose.  I
believe it's clearer to submitters if they know who the Reviewers are
compared with who will actually take the patch into the 'system'.

> > reiterate:
> >
> > Reviewers care about particular driver(s)/domain(s) that they know
> > well.  They provide solid reviews and possible testing (because they
> > are likely to have the h/w).  They then provide Acked-by:s so that a
> > Maintainer can collect the patch.
> >
> >> while for
> >> others it seems that maintainer means someone who care about a set of
> >> files, knows the code, makes sure that things keep working and Ack
> >> patches to those files when posted.
> >
> >         goto reiterate;   ;)
> >
> 
> No need for that, I already explained my point of view several times
> and you just think I'm wrong because I don't agree with you. So let's
> just agree on disagree ;-)

I do think you're wrong.  And you think I am wrong.  My reasoning is
based on logic, common sense and words, and yours is based on, well, I
really don't know. ;)

So yes, we'll have to agree to disagree or neither of us will get any
real work done today.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1258225

Hello Lee,

[removed since we have been discussing the same back and forth]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> No need for that, I already explained my point of view several times
>> and you just think I'm wrong because I don't agree with you. So let's
>> just agree on disagree ;-)
>
> I do think you're wrong.  And you think I am wrong.  My reasoning is
> based on logic, common sense and words, and yours is based on, well, I
> really don't know. ;)
>

My reasoning is based on two things basically:

1) Simplicity: it is easier to think in terms of developers (that post
patches) and maintainers (that reviews / acks patches) instead of
developers (that post patches), reviewers (that review patches) and
maintainers (that collect patches and push them upstream).

Individual developers posting patches should not even care what is the
flow of a patch into mainline IMHO, just who should be in copy (which
should be both the "own" of the file whatever is called and the
subsystem maintainer).

2) Consistency: I think that the developer / maintainer split is what
more people are familiar with than the developer / reviewer /
maintainer split.

I don't really have a strong opinion and I'm completely OK if all the
people that don't keep a tree are renamed to Reviewer, Author,
Whatever instead of Maintainer. The only thing that I ask is if this
could be made consistently across all subsystems and have an agreement
in consensus so developers knows what the semantics are regardless of
what subsystems they need to contribute.

> So yes, we'll have to agree to disagree or neither of us will get any
> real work done today.
>

Agreed, I spent most of my morning on this thread ;)

Best regards,
Javier
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1258489

On 28.10.2015 23:38, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> They are not maintainers according to your definition of maintainer
>> that doesn't seem what most people agree with.
> 
> "most people" so far are 3 people that I assume still want to be
> Maintainers despite not actually conducting Maintainer duties, but
> are rather Reviewers.  I also have 2 Acks for this patch, so thus far
> that's 3 that agree and 3 that do not.  Unsurprisingly the ones that
> agree are Maintainers and the ones who are not are (by my definition)
> Reviewers -- go figure.
> 

I am not sure on which side you put me finally. :)
If there is a consensus among some more experienced developers that
maintainer means branch and patches maintaining, then I won't see any
problem with the patch nor with switching Samsung PMIC entries to review.

In that case, that would be:
Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>

Best regards,
Krzysztof

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1258497

Hello Lee,

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<k.kozlowski@samsung.com> wrote:
> On 28.10.2015 23:38, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>> They are not maintainers according to your definition of maintainer
>>> that doesn't seem what most people agree with.
>>
>> "most people" so far are 3 people that I assume still want to be
>> Maintainers despite not actually conducting Maintainer duties, but
>> are rather Reviewers.  I also have 2 Acks for this patch, so thus far
>> that's 3 that agree and 3 that do not.  Unsurprisingly the ones that
>> agree are Maintainers and the ones who are not are (by my definition)
>> Reviewers -- go figure.
>>
>
> I am not sure on which side you put me finally. :)
> If there is a consensus among some more experienced developers that
> maintainer means branch and patches maintaining, then I won't see any
> problem with the patch nor with switching Samsung PMIC entries to review.
>
> In that case, that would be:
> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>

Same for me, what I don't want is to have different meanings per
subsystems of what maintainers and reviewers mean since that could
confuse developers posting patches.

But if there is a kernel wide consensus and all subsystems entries are
going to be updated to use the same semantics and list as Reviewer to
people that don't keep git trees, then I'm OK with this patch and you
can add my:

Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>

Best regards,
Javier
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1259632

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:

> Hello Lee,
> 
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> wrote:
> > On 28.10.2015 23:38, Lee Jones wrote:
> >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> >>> They are not maintainers according to your definition of maintainer
> >>> that doesn't seem what most people agree with.
> >>
> >> "most people" so far are 3 people that I assume still want to be
> >> Maintainers despite not actually conducting Maintainer duties, but
> >> are rather Reviewers.  I also have 2 Acks for this patch, so thus far
> >> that's 3 that agree and 3 that do not.  Unsurprisingly the ones that
> >> agree are Maintainers and the ones who are not are (by my definition)
> >> Reviewers -- go figure.
> >>
> >
> > I am not sure on which side you put me finally. :)
> > If there is a consensus among some more experienced developers that
> > maintainer means branch and patches maintaining, then I won't see any
> > problem with the patch nor with switching Samsung PMIC entries to review.
> >
> > In that case, that would be:
> > Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
> >
> 
> Same for me, what I don't want is to have different meanings per
> subsystems of what maintainers and reviewers mean since that could
> confuse developers posting patches.
> 
> But if there is a kernel wide consensus and all subsystems entries are
> going to be updated to use the same semantics and list as Reviewer to
> people that don't keep git trees, then I'm OK with this patch and you
> can add my:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>

Thanks Javier, but I'm going to drop this patch.

I can see it causing more issues than it'll solve.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1259634

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

> On 28.10.2015 23:38, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> >> They are not maintainers according to your definition of maintainer
> >> that doesn't seem what most people agree with.
> > 
> > "most people" so far are 3 people that I assume still want to be
> > Maintainers despite not actually conducting Maintainer duties, but
> > are rather Reviewers.  I also have 2 Acks for this patch, so thus far
> > that's 3 that agree and 3 that do not.  Unsurprisingly the ones that
> > agree are Maintainers and the ones who are not are (by my definition)
> > Reviewers -- go figure.
> > 
> 
> I am not sure on which side you put me finally. :)
> If there is a consensus among some more experienced developers that
> maintainer means branch and patches maintaining, then I won't see any
> problem with the patch nor with switching Samsung PMIC entries to review.
> 
> In that case, that would be:
> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>

Thanks Krzysztof, but I'm going to drop this patch.

I can see it causing more issues than it'll solve.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1258200

Hello Lee,

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Lee Jones wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hello Joe,
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>> >> > > On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 11:53 +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> >> > >> (Lee) think(s) that the difference between a maintainer and
>> >> > >> a reviewer is if a branch with fixes / new features are kept and pull
>> >> > >> requests sent while I think that the difference is the level of
>> >> > >> involvement someone has with a driver regardless of how patches ends
>> >> > >> in the subsystem tree (picked directly by subsystem maintainers or
>> >> > >> sent through pull requests).
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Is the first time I heard your definition but maybe I'm the one that
>> >> > >> is wrong so it would be great to get a consensus on that and get it
>> >> > >> documented somewhere.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I think Lee is over-analyzing.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > From MAINTAINERS:
>> >> > >         M: Mail patches to: FullName <address@domain>
>> >> > >         R: Designated reviewer: FullName <address@domain>
>> >> > >            These reviewers should be CCed on patches.
>> >> > >         S: Status, one of the following:
>> >> > >            Supported:   Someone is actually paid to look after this.
>> >> > >            Maintained:  Someone actually looks after it.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > "looking after" doesn't mean upstreaming.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > Agreed and upstreaming doesn't mean sending pull request, you can for
>> >> > example upstream the downstream changes for a driver you maintain by
>> >> > posting patches or ack patches others post and let the subsystem
>> >> > maintainer to pick those (even if you are listed as the driver
>> >> > maintainer in MAINTAINERS).
>> >> >
>> >> > So by following Lee's definition, then most drivers' maintainers
>> >> > should not be called maintainers since keeping a tree with patches for
>> >> > both fixes and new features, sending pull requests, etc is only
>> >> > justified for drivers that have a lot of changes per release. Is not
>> >> > worth it for drivers that are in "maintenance mode" where only bugs
>> >> > are fixed every once in a while or features are seldom added.
>> >>
>> >> Exactly right.
>> >>
>> >> Although, it looks like M: doesn't even mean Maintainer.  If it did, I
>> >> would have made these points over and over until death (or until I got
>> >> bored).  However, as M: actually means "Mail patches to", there seems
>> >> to be very little difference between that and "Designated reviewer"
>> >> and makes me wonder why the R: tag was ever even introduced.  I guess
>> >> all of the other guys in the threads below also thought M: meant
>> >> Maintainer, or else they would have just added poor old Josh as a
>> >> "Mail patches to" recipient and been done with it.
>> >
>> > Ah, but wait.  get_maintainer.pl *does* assume M means Maintainer
>> > doesn't it?  Which is why this came about.  So if we have a "Mail
>> > patches to" entry, get_maintainer.pl tells the user that this is a
>>
>> Joe already answered but I'll elaborate a little bit:
>>
>> "M:" means "Mail patches to" and "S:" means "Status" so what
>> get_maintainers.pl is reports the person in "M:" printing the status
>> of the file(s).
>>
>> So for example if the file has "S: Supported" then the person listed
>> in "M:" is shown as "supporter" while if the status is "S:
>> Maintained", the person is listed as "maintainer".
>>
>> There isn't a "Reviewed" status to specify files that are looked by
>> "Designated reviewers", it can be added but I don't see the reason of
>> it.
>
> Not sure why you wrote all of this.  We know *why* get_maintainer.pl
> does what it does.  What I'm saying is, that I personally believe this
> is the wrong behaviour in what I'm *guessing* is the majority of the
> time.
>

Ok sorry if it was clear to you already.

>> > Maintainer, which (given that there are over 1000 unique M: entries
>> > and I know that there are no where near that many actual Maintainers)
>> > means that it's printing out incorrect information most of the time.
>>
>> Well, that's correct according to your definition of maintainer
>> (people with a tree that sends pull requests) but I can believe that
>> there are 1K unique maintainers for different small components
>> (without taking into account what components may be obsolete / not
>> used anymore) even if these maintainers don't send pull request
>> because the patch load is low and rely on subsystem maintainers to
>> pick directly from the list with their Acks.
>
> Then they are not Maintainers.  They are Reviewers who rely on
> Maintainers.  In your example above it's the Maintainers that are
> Maintainers and the people who review the code are Reviewers.  The
> clues are in the words. ;)
>

They are not maintainers according to your definition of maintainer
that doesn't seem what most people agree with.

>> For me the maintainer is that a) cares about the file and makes sure
>> that things remain working, fix issues, reviews patches from others,
>> etc b) is someone that actually understand the code in the files. A
>> subsystem maintainer has the last word of what gets merged into the
>> subsystem but may not be familiar with code under the subsystem and
>> relies on the file / driver maintainer to Ack the patch as correct
>> since that person is the one that knows the code.
>
> Then what is a Reviewer?
>

As I mentioned before, I think a reviewer is someone who is interested
in a given file / driver / subsystem and reviews patches to the list
but does not have an authoritative answer on that file. I gave as an
example that I review patches posted for Exynos SoC support although
I'm not mentioned in MAINTAINERS and I don't plan it to be. People
don't know that I'm interested in that and don't cc me, I just review
what is posted to the linux-samsung-soc ML.

A designated reviewer is someone that is mentioned in the MAINTAINERS
file so people know that this person is interested and will add
him/her as cc. So designated reviewers are expected to review more
patches, be more available, etc and it seems the idea is that they can
become maintainers in the future if there is some need for it.

>> > So back to my original thought then, what can we do to rectify this
>> > situation and make the information printed more meaningful.  Again,
>> > I'm back to using the R: tag appropriately.
>> >
>> > Any (technical, which aren't based on "but I really want to be listed
>> > as a Maintainer") thoughts?
>> >
>>
>> I haven't read a "but I really want to be listed as a maintainer"
>> thought in this thread.
>
> If you had no vested interest in this, you would be able to see the
> logic in what I'm saying.  Again I'm *guess*, but I think there is
> some emotional reasons for you pushing back so hard.  I could always
> be wrong though.
>

Oh, I have no personal interest. I'm not even listed as a maintainer /
reviewer for anything that is MFD related and I do understand your
point is just that I don't agree. The fact that we disagree doesn't
mean that you are right and I'm wrong.

So if anything I think this thread is more about "but I really don't
want people without a tree to be listed as a Maintainer".

What I do care is about consistency across different subystems since
the kernel development process is already complicated and there are
already differences in the workflow of the maintainers so people
contributing to many subsystems have to first do some research to
learn all the unwritten rules and conventions of a given susbystem and
subsystem maintainer before posting patches.

That's why adding the semantics of maintainers and reviewers to the
mix of things to keep in mind is not something that thrills me.

>> I think the problem is the definition of what a maintainer in Linux
>> really means. For you is someone that keeps a tree and sends pull
>> request (for me that is what I call a subsystem maintainer)
>
> Right.  A Level 3 Maintainer sends pull-requests to a Level 2
> Maintainer, who sends pull-requests to a Level 1 Maintainer, who sends
> pull-requests to Linus.  Maintainers at *all* levels collect patches
> and Maintain them before sending on.
>

Here is where we disagree (and it seems is not only me), someone who
acks patches posted to some files even if those are later picked for
someone higher in the maintenance hierarchy could be named maintainers
as well since they "own" those files and their answer should be
authoritative (no matter how the patches end into mainline).

At the end of the day is to make easier for developers to understand
who are the interested parties for a given change. It is much easier
to think in terms of different levels of maintainers that should be
copied so they can review and possibly people outside of that group if
they are subscribed to the mailing lists. Naming the first levels
reviewers makes no sense for me since it will only confuse new comers
IMHO.

> reiterate:
>
> Reviewers care about particular driver(s)/domain(s) that they know
> well.  They provide solid reviews and possible testing (because they
> are likely to have the h/w).  They then provide Acked-by:s so that a
> Maintainer can collect the patch.
>
>> while for
>> others it seems that maintainer means someone who care about a set of
>> files, knows the code, makes sure that things keep working and Ack
>> patches to those files when posted.
>
>         goto reiterate;   ;)
>

No need for that, I already explained my point of view several times
and you just think I'm wrong because I don't agree with you. So let's
just agree on disagree ;-)

Best regards,
Javier
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1257845

On 28.10.2015 17:24, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> 2015-10-28 3:44 GMT+09:00 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>:
>>> On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 18:15 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Sebastian Reichel wrote:> >
>>>>> I think you should CC the people, which are changed from "M:"
>>>>> to "R:", though.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, makes sense.
>>>> 
>>>> I'd like to collect some Maintainer Acks first though.
>>> 
>>> I think people from organizations like Samsung are actual 
>>> maintainers not reviewers.
> 
> So this all hinges on how we are describing Maintainers and
> Reviewers.
> 
> My personal definition (until convinced otherwise) is that Reviewers 
> care about their particular subsystem and/or files.  They conduct
> code reviews to ensure nothing gets broken and the code base stays in
> best possible state of worthiness.  On the other hand Maintainers
> usually conduct themselves as Reviewers but also have
> 'maintainership' duties as well; such as applying patches,
> *maintaining*, testing, rebasing, etc, an upstream branch and
> ultimately sending pull-requests to higher level Maintainers i.e.
> Linus.  Maintainers also have the ultimate say (unless over-ruled by
> Linus etc) over what gets applied.

Okay, sounds reasonable... so if a person performs reviews plus he does
some of the other activities (not all) then who is he?

For example reviewing + testing + fixing bugs + cleaning up (sending
patches from time to time)?

Would that be sufficient requirement to call him maintainer of a driver?
Or maybe all of these requirements must be met (including handling of
patches and sending pull reqs)?


>>> Their drivers are not thrown over a wall and forgotten.
>> 
>> At least for Samsung Multifunction PMIC drivers (and some of Maxim 
>> MUICs and PMICs) these are actively used by us in existing and new 
>> products. They are also continuously extended and actually
>> maintained. This means that it is not only about review of new
>> patches but also about caring that nothing will become broken.
> 
> Exactly.  This what I expect of any good code Reviewer.
> 
>> I would prefer to leave the "SAMSUNG MULTIFUNCTION PMIC DEVICE 
>> DRIVERS" entry as is - maintainers.
> 
> But you aren't maintaining the driver i.e. you don't collect patches 
> and *maintain* them on an upstream branch.

Indeed, we don't. However are other non-reviewing activities sufficient?

> Granted some of you guys 
> are doing a great job of maintaining branches on your downstream or 
> BSP kernels, but conduct a Reviewer type role for upstream.

You mentioned also the "ultimate say over what gets applied" - which in
this particular case is interesting to us because we have direct
interest in these drivers being in a good shape and doing things we
expect them to do. Like representing the interest of users.

Of course one could say that every upstreaming person has such
expectations... but some of the upstreamers just send a driver for one
device. Or extend driver for one device. In this case this is a family
of devices used on all of our Exynos SoC products and we care about all
of them.


> You guys are pushing back like this is some kind of demotion.
> That's not the case at all.  All it does is better describe the (very
> worthy) function you *actually* provide.

It is getting into dispute about entire change of yours... which is not
what I want. I agree with your general idea but I was referring only to
that particular case - the Samsung PMICs (and Maxim PMICs/MUICs which
would fall into same category).

Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1257854

Hello,

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 06:23:37PM +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28.10.2015 17:24, Lee Jones wrote:
> > You guys are pushing back like this is some kind of demotion.
> > That's not the case at all.  All it does is better describe the (very
> > worthy) function you *actually* provide.
> 
> It is getting into dispute about entire change of yours... which is not
> what I want. I agree with your general idea but I was referring only to
> that particular case - the Samsung PMICs (and Maxim PMICs/MUICs which
> would fall into same category).

Not being affected by this change, I wonder what the technical
difference is if someone is listed as reviewer instead of maintainer.
Does get_maintainer.pl behave differently?

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1257870

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 06:23:37PM +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 28.10.2015 17:24, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > You guys are pushing back like this is some kind of demotion.
> > > That's not the case at all.  All it does is better describe the (very
> > > worthy) function you *actually* provide.
> > 
> > It is getting into dispute about entire change of yours... which is not
> > what I want. I agree with your general idea but I was referring only to
> > that particular case - the Samsung PMICs (and Maxim PMICs/MUICs which
> > would fall into same category).
> 
> Not being affected by this change, I wonder what the technical
> difference is if someone is listed as reviewer instead of maintainer.
> Does get_maintainer.pl behave differently?

Reviewers are people who should be Cc'ed on all patches, as are
Maintainers, so no, fundamentally they are treated the same by a
Submitter.

Here is some output for Maintainers/Reviews from get_maintainer.pl.

 $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f arch/arm/boot/dts/vf500.dtsi
 Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org> (maintainer:ARM/FREESCALE VYBRID ARM ARCHITECTURE)
 Sascha Hauer <kernel@pengutronix.de> (maintainer:ARM/FREESCALE VYBRID ARM ARCHITECTURE)
 Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch> (reviewer)
 Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> (maintainer:ARM PORT)
 linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org (moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE VYBRID ARM ARCHITECTURE)
 devicetree@vger.kernel.org (open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS)
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list)

I'm sure we can make the output even more similar by listing the
MAINTAINERS tag after "reviewer" too.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1258013

W dniu 28.10.2015 o 18:55, Lee Jones pisze:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 06:23:37PM +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 28.10.2015 17:24, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>> You guys are pushing back like this is some kind of demotion.
>>>> That's not the case at all.  All it does is better describe the (very
>>>> worthy) function you *actually* provide.
>>>
>>> It is getting into dispute about entire change of yours... which is not
>>> what I want. I agree with your general idea but I was referring only to
>>> that particular case - the Samsung PMICs (and Maxim PMICs/MUICs which
>>> would fall into same category).
>>
>> Not being affected by this change, I wonder what the technical
>> difference is if someone is listed as reviewer instead of maintainer.
>> Does get_maintainer.pl behave differently?
> 
> Reviewers are people who should be Cc'ed on all patches, as are
> Maintainers, so no, fundamentally they are treated the same by a
> Submitter.
> 
> Here is some output for Maintainers/Reviews from get_maintainer.pl.
> 
>  $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f arch/arm/boot/dts/vf500.dtsi
>  Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org> (maintainer:ARM/FREESCALE VYBRID ARM ARCHITECTURE)
>  Sascha Hauer <kernel@pengutronix.de> (maintainer:ARM/FREESCALE VYBRID ARM ARCHITECTURE)
>  Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch> (reviewer)
>  Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> (maintainer:ARM PORT)
>  linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org (moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE VYBRID ARM ARCHITECTURE)
>  devicetree@vger.kernel.org (open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS)
>  linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list)
> 
> I'm sure we can make the output even more similar by listing the
> MAINTAINERS tag after "reviewer" too.

And here is the output of drivers/mfd/sec-core.c *before*:
Sangbeom Kim <sbkim73@samsung.com> (supporter:SAMSUNG MULTIFUNCTION PMIC DEVICE DRIVERS)
Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> (supporter:SAMSUNG MULTIFUNCTION PMIC DEVICE DRIVERS)
Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> (supporter:MULTIFUNCTION DEVICES (MFD))


and after (where I am listed as reviewer):
Sangbeom Kim <sbkim73@samsung.com> (reviewer)
Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> (reviewer)
Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> (supporter:MULTIFUNCTION DEVICES (MFD))

Maybe it should be "supporter reviewer"?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1258298 — [PATCH] get_maintainer: Add subsystem to reviewer output

Reviewer output currently does not include the subsystem
that matched.  Add it.

Miscellanea:

o Add a get_subsystem_name routine to centralize this

Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
---
 scripts/get_maintainer.pl | 31 ++++++++++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
index 98bae86..d641541 100755
--- a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
+++ b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
@@ -970,20 +970,29 @@ sub find_ending_index {
     return $index;
 }
 
-sub get_maintainer_role {
+sub get_subsystem_name {
     my ($index) = @_;
 
-    my $i;
     my $start = find_starting_index($index);
-    my $end = find_ending_index($index);
 
-    my $role = "unknown";
     my $subsystem = $typevalue[$start];
     if ($output_section_maxlen && length($subsystem) > $output_section_maxlen) {
 	$subsystem = substr($subsystem, 0, $output_section_maxlen - 3);
 	$subsystem =~ s/\s*$//;
 	$subsystem = $subsystem . "...";
     }
+    return $subsystem;
+}
+
+sub get_maintainer_role {
+    my ($index) = @_;
+
+    my $i;
+    my $start = find_starting_index($index);
+    my $end = find_ending_index($index);
+
+    my $role = "unknown";
+    my $subsystem = get_subsystem_name($index);
 
     for ($i = $start + 1; $i < $end; $i++) {
 	my $tv = $typevalue[$i];
@@ -1017,16 +1026,7 @@ sub get_maintainer_role {
 sub get_list_role {
     my ($index) = @_;
 
-    my $i;
-    my $start = find_starting_index($index);
-    my $end = find_ending_index($index);
-
-    my $subsystem = $typevalue[$start];
-    if ($output_section_maxlen && length($subsystem) > $output_section_maxlen) {
-	$subsystem = substr($subsystem, 0, $output_section_maxlen - 3);
-	$subsystem =~ s/\s*$//;
-	$subsystem = $subsystem . "...";
-    }
+    my $subsystem = get_subsystem_name($index);
 
     if ($subsystem eq "THE REST") {
 	$subsystem = "";
@@ -1114,7 +1114,8 @@ sub add_categories {
 		    }
 		}
 		if ($email_reviewer) {
-		    push_email_addresses($pvalue, 'reviewer');
+		    my $subsystem = get_subsystem_name($i);
+		    push_email_addresses($pvalue, "reviewer:$subsystem");
 		}
 	    } elsif ($ptype eq "T") {
 		push(@scm, $pvalue);


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1258315 — Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Add subsystem to reviewer output

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Joe Perches wrote:

> Reviewer output currently does not include the subsystem
> that matched.  Add it.
> 
> Miscellanea:
> 
> o Add a get_subsystem_name routine to centralize this
> 
> Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> ---
>  scripts/get_maintainer.pl | 31 ++++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

It looks like I'm going to have to drop the patch where we actually
start using the R: tag properly due to some social, emotional issues.

Despite that and not knowing Perl, I believe get_maintainer.pl should
be printing out the subsystem next to 'reviewer' as it does for
'maintainer'.

So with that in mind:
  Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>

> diff --git a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
> index 98bae86..d641541 100755
> --- a/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
> +++ b/scripts/get_maintainer.pl
> @@ -970,20 +970,29 @@ sub find_ending_index {
>      return $index;
>  }
>  
> -sub get_maintainer_role {
> +sub get_subsystem_name {
>      my ($index) = @_;
>  
> -    my $i;
>      my $start = find_starting_index($index);
> -    my $end = find_ending_index($index);
>  
> -    my $role = "unknown";
>      my $subsystem = $typevalue[$start];
>      if ($output_section_maxlen && length($subsystem) > $output_section_maxlen) {
>  	$subsystem = substr($subsystem, 0, $output_section_maxlen - 3);
>  	$subsystem =~ s/\s*$//;
>  	$subsystem = $subsystem . "...";
>      }
> +    return $subsystem;
> +}
> +
> +sub get_maintainer_role {
> +    my ($index) = @_;
> +
> +    my $i;
> +    my $start = find_starting_index($index);
> +    my $end = find_ending_index($index);
> +
> +    my $role = "unknown";
> +    my $subsystem = get_subsystem_name($index);
>  
>      for ($i = $start + 1; $i < $end; $i++) {
>  	my $tv = $typevalue[$i];
> @@ -1017,16 +1026,7 @@ sub get_maintainer_role {
>  sub get_list_role {
>      my ($index) = @_;
>  
> -    my $i;
> -    my $start = find_starting_index($index);
> -    my $end = find_ending_index($index);
> -
> -    my $subsystem = $typevalue[$start];
> -    if ($output_section_maxlen && length($subsystem) > $output_section_maxlen) {
> -	$subsystem = substr($subsystem, 0, $output_section_maxlen - 3);
> -	$subsystem =~ s/\s*$//;
> -	$subsystem = $subsystem . "...";
> -    }
> +    my $subsystem = get_subsystem_name($index);
>  
>      if ($subsystem eq "THE REST") {
>  	$subsystem = "";
> @@ -1114,7 +1114,8 @@ sub add_categories {
>  		    }
>  		}
>  		if ($email_reviewer) {
> -		    push_email_addresses($pvalue, 'reviewer');
> +		    my $subsystem = get_subsystem_name($i);
> +		    push_email_addresses($pvalue, "reviewer:$subsystem");
>  		}
>  	    } elsif ($ptype eq "T") {
>  		push(@scm, $pvalue);
> 
> 

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1258317 — Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Add subsystem to reviewer output

On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 17:01 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
> 
> > Reviewer output currently does not include the subsystem
> > that matched.  Add it.
> > 
> > Miscellanea:
> > 
> > o Add a get_subsystem_name routine to centralize this
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> > ---
> >  scripts/get_maintainer.pl | 31 ++++++++++++++++---------------
> >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> It looks like I'm going to have to drop the patch where we actually
> start using the R: tag properly due to some social, emotional issues.

Not to mention logical.

> Despite that and not knowing Perl, I believe get_maintainer.pl should
> be printing out the subsystem next to 'reviewer' as it does for
> 'maintainer'.
> 
> So with that in mind:
>   Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>

It'd be better if you could add a "tested-by:" instead.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1258327 — Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Add subsystem to reviewer output

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Joe Perches wrote:

> On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 17:01 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
> > 
> > > Reviewer output currently does not include the subsystem
> > > that matched.  Add it.
> > > 
> > > Miscellanea:
> > > 
> > > o Add a get_subsystem_name routine to centralize this
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> > > ---
> > >  scripts/get_maintainer.pl | 31 ++++++++++++++++---------------
> > >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > 
> > It looks like I'm going to have to drop the patch where we actually
> > start using the R: tag properly due to some social, emotional issues.
> 
> Not to mention logical.

Hmm... we continue to disagree on that one.

> > Despite that and not knowing Perl, I believe get_maintainer.pl should
> > be printing out the subsystem next to 'reviewer' as it does for
> > 'maintainer'.
> > 
> > So with that in mind:
> >   Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> 
> It'd be better if you could add a "tested-by:" instead.

Patch works as expected:
  Tested-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>

Feel free to add my Suggested-by too, based on my belief that this
patch was born out of this comment:

      "I'm sure we can make the output even more similar by listing
      the MAINTAINERS tag after "reviewer" too."

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1258331 — Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Add subsystem to reviewer output

On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 17:22 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
> > >   Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> > It'd be better if you could add a "tested-by:" instead.
> 
> Patch works as expected:
>   Tested-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
[]
>       "I'm sure we can make the output even more similar by listing
>       the MAINTAINERS tag after "reviewer" too."

I guess we'll disagree on that one too.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1258332 — Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Add subsystem to reviewer output

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Joe Perches wrote:

> On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 17:22 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > >   Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> > > It'd be better if you could add a "tested-by:" instead.
> > 
> > Patch works as expected:
> >   Tested-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> []
> >       "I'm sure we can make the output even more similar by listing
> >       the MAINTAINERS tag after "reviewer" too."
> 
> I guess we'll disagree on that one too.

You just happened to think of it a few hours after I mentioned it.

Remarkable. ;)

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1258336 — Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Add subsystem to reviewer output

On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 17:49 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 17:22 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > >   Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> > > > It'd be better if you could add a "tested-by:" instead.
> > > 
> > > Patch works as expected:
> > >   Tested-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> > []
> > >       "I'm sure we can make the output even more similar by listing
> > >       the MAINTAINERS tag after "reviewer" too."
> > 
> > I guess we'll disagree on that one too.
> 
> You just happened to think of it a few hours after I mentioned it.

Nope, it seems a maintainers tag is what Krzysztof was suggesting
with his "supported reviewer" bit.

I added the subsystem name.

An issue for that will be how multiple subsystem section matching
affects the output for reviewers who are also maintainers.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1258681 — Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Add subsystem to reviewer output

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 17:49 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 17:22 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > >   Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> > > > > It'd be better if you could add a "tested-by:" instead.
> > > > 
> > > > Patch works as expected:
> > > >   Tested-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> > > []
> > > >       "I'm sure we can make the output even more similar by listing
> > > >       the MAINTAINERS tag after "reviewer" too."
> > > 
> > > I guess we'll disagree on that one too.
> > 
> > You just happened to think of it a few hours after I mentioned it.
> 
> Nope, it seems a maintainers tag is what Krzysztof was suggesting
> with his "supported reviewer" bit.

Which was in reply to the bit above.

> I added the subsystem name.

(subsystem name == MAINTAINERS tag) in my comment above.

> An issue for that will be how multiple subsystem section matching
> affects the output for reviewers who are also maintainers.

I think that's okay, becuase the 'MAINTAINERS tag' will be different.

As an example:

  Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> (supporter:DRIVER SUBSYSTEM)
  Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> (reviewer:VENDOR DRIVER NAME)

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1258814 — Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Add subsystem to reviewer output

On Thu, 2015-10-29 at 09:20 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Joe Perches wrote:

> > An issue for that will be how multiple subsystem section matching
> > affects the output for reviewers who are also maintainers.
> 
> I think that's okay, becuase the 'MAINTAINERS tag' will be different.
> 
> As an example:
> 
>   Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> (supporter:DRIVER SUBSYSTEM)
>   Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> (reviewer:VENDOR DRIVER NAME)

I'm pretty sure I know a little more about the
behavior of the get_maintainers script than you do.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web