"Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:31:12AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes: >> >> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:19:52PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >> >> On 20 October 2014 15:15, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >> >> >> On 20 October 2014 10:19, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >> > Contributors rely on this script to find maintainers to copy. The >> >> >> > script falls back to git when no exact MAINTAINERS pattern matches. >> >> >> > When that happens, recent contributors get copied, which tends not be >> >> >> > particularly useful. Some contributors find it even annoying. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Flip the default to "don't fall back to git". Use --git-fallback to >> >> >> > ask it to fall back to git. >> >> >> >> >> Good idea. >> >> >> >> > What do you want to happen in this case? >> >> >> >> It should mail the people who are actually maintainers, >> >> not anybody who happened to touch the code in the last >> >> year. >> > >> > Right but as often as not there's no data about that >> > in MAINTAINERS. >> >> The way to fix that is finding maintainers, not scatter-shooting patches >> to random contributors in the vague hope of hitting someone who cares. >> >> >> > I'm yet to see contributors who are annoyed but we >> >> > can always blacklist specific people. >> >> >> >> At the moment I just don't use get_maintainers.pl at >> >> all because I tried it a few times and it just cc'd >> >> a bunch of irrelevant people... >> >> >> >> I suspect anybody using it at the moment is either >> >> using the --no-git-fallback flag or trimming the >> >> cc list a lot. >> >> >> >> thanks >> >> -- PMM >> > >> > I'm using it: sometimes with --no-git-fallback, sometimes without. >> >> I'm using it, but I absolutely want to know when it falls back to git, >> because then I want to cheack and trim or ignore its output every single >> time. > > > Well it tells you the role. What else is necessary?
For my own use in sending patches, nothing. I know how to use it to help me copy the right people. >> > IIUC the default is to have up to 5 people on the Cc list >> > (--git-max-maintainers). >> > It's not like it adds 200 random people, is it? >> > >> > Anyway experienced contributors can figure it out IMHO. >> >> Experienced contributors can figure out --git-fallback, too. > > Exactly. > >> What we see is contributors, especially less experienced ones, copying >> whatever get_maintainers.pl spits out, because they have no idea what >> get_maintainers.pl actually does. > > Exactly. And this seems better than just sending to qemu ML > and not copying anyone. That's where we disagree. Personally, I don't mind getting punished for contributing patches by getting copied indiscriminately all that much. It's a drain on my time, but I can cope. However, I know people who do mind, and some of them have spoken up in this thread. Copying people is not free. You should *think* before you copy. An entry in MAINTAINERS dispenses you from this obligation, because the people listed explicitly asked for a copy. Finding someone in git-log does not! get_maintainers.pl encourages its users to treat people found in git-log exactly like the ones in MAINTAINERS. Treating them the same is *wrong*. >> > Question in my mind is what do we want a casual contributor >> > to do if there's no one listed in MAINTAINERS. >> > "Look in MAINTAINERS, if not there, look in git log" >> > sounds very reasonable to me, better than "CC no one". >> >> But that's not what we do! We do "copy whatever get_maintainers.pl >> coughs up", which boils down to "use MAINTAINERS, if not there, grab >> some random victims from git-log". > > Sorry, what's the difference? > "look in" versus "random victims"? what makes them random? The difference is using get_maintainers.pl to help finding whom to copy vs. blindly copying whoever get_maintainers.pl coughs up. > Maybe you just want to increase git-min-percent? > >> Perhaps we'd get slightly better results if get_maintainers.pl told its >> users clearly about the two kinds of output it may produce: maintainers >> (must be copied on patches), and recent contributors (you're in trouble; >> copying some of them may or may not help). > > That's what it does: it reports the role, and the percent. Boldly assumes the user of get_maintainers.pl knows what it does, and knows how to interpret runes like (commit_signer:14/22=64%). > What's missing? What's really missing is decent coverage by MAINTAINERS. I figure my patch is controversial only because MAINTAINERS is so woefully incomplete. My patch to get_maintainers.pl triggered a whole thread, while the message I sent on MAINTAINERS coverage got just one reply so far, and even that one's really just about get_maintainers.pl. Disappointing. Looks like we're still looking for an easy technical fix. I doubt there is one. If you have better ideas on how to mitigate the excessive and useless copying we now see, please post a patch.
