On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 18:52 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>
> On 06/26/2018 04:16 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 14:25 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> > > OSes have additional maintainers that should be cc'd on patches or may
> > > want to circulate internal patches.
> > >
> > > Parse the .get_maintainer.MAINTAINERS file. Entries in the file
> > > can begin with a '+' to indicate the email and list entries should be
> > > added to the exiting MAINTAINERS output, or a '-' to indicate that the
> > > entries should override the existing MAINTAINERS file.
> > >
> > > Also add a help entry for the .get_maintainers.ignore file.
> >
> > I see no reason for this patch to be applied.
> > Why should it?
>
> The kernel has other vendor/OS changes like my patch, for example,
> 4efb442cc12e
> ("kernel/panic.c: add TAINT_AUX"). From that commit message
>
> Add an auxiliary taint flag to be used by distros and others. This
> obviates the need to forward-port whatever internal solutions people
> have in favor of a single flag which they can map arbitrarily to a
> definition of their pleasing.
>
> The same principle should be applied to my patch in that distros no longer
> would
> need to forward-port internal solutions similar to this.
>
> > Why shouldn't this be in your private repository?
>
> If you don't want it I'll carry it forward but that's a loss for both of us,
> and
> as pointed out in the above commit, other distros. If you do want to reject
> the
> patch please let me know and I'll only submit the "get_maintainer.ignore" help
> chunk.
I doubt it's a really a loss for others as whatever
.get_maintainers.<foo> files would likely need to
be customized for each distro.
I think the whole thing should be ignored.
