On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 17:58 -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 02:36:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > > Just trying to find ways to minimize our collection of private
> > > > > > patches.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps that could be extended for your purpose
> > > > > with some additional argument like a specific
> > > > > optional directory/path where every subdirectory
> > > > > would be found.
> > > >
> > > > So something like --find-maintainer-files=<dir> ? I think that could
> > > > work.
> > >
> > > So --find-maintainers-files=./kernel/pci
> > >
> > > would only look for MAINTAINERS files under kernel/pci?
> >
> > Well, perhaps yes. Perhaps it would also read
> > a top level MAINTAINERS file. Dunno. What seems
> > right to you?
> >
> > I don't have an objection to
> > --find-maintainer-files=<path_or_file> where
> > the existing behavior of --find-maintainer-files
> > without <path_or_file> is all subdirs.
> >
> > Perhaps something like the below
> > (some of this is whitespace change only)
> > ---
> > scripts/get_maintainer.pl | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> > +
> > + if (defined $find_maintainer_files) {
> > + die "$P: invalid find-maintainer-files <$path>" if (!-d $path);
>
> ^^^^^
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> Thanks for the patch!! If I remove the above 'die' line I can pass in a
> file or a dir. Otherwise the 'die' line prevents a 'file' from being used.
Change it to (!-e $file), I was just spitballing.
> Not sure if that is important for this patch or not.
It's not.
> We have an internal use case of multiple MAINTAINER files, some folks have
> more rights to patches than others so they are not allowed to be cc'd (think
> embargoed stuff).
>
> So the 'file' usage would be useful for us. But if you are against it, we
> can
> easily patch it out on our end.
cheers, Joe
