On 10/22/14 04:29, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:03:53AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 09:01:24AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:34:46PM +0200, Markus Arm
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:03:53AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 09:01:24AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:34:46PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> >> Pao
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:10:58AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:01:43 +0300
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 08:39:59AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:29:14PM +0200, Mar
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:01:43 +0300
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 08:39:59AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> >
> > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:29:14PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> > >>
> > >> >
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 09:01:24AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:34:46PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> >> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On 10/20/2014 04:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wro
On 10/22/2014 09:12 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > $ scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f util/cutils.c
> > Luiz Capitulino (commit_signer:1/2=50%)
> > Eric Blake (commit_signer:1/2=50%)
> > Alexey Kardashevskiy (commit_signer:1/2=50%)
> > Laszlo Ersek (commit_signer:1/2=50%)
>
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 09:01:24AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:34:46PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> Paolo Bonzini writes:
> >>
> >> > On 10/20/2014 04:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> >> What do you want to happen
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:34:46PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>>
>> > On 10/20/2014 04:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> >> What do you want to happen in this case?
>> >> Won't this cause even more patches to fall to the floor?
>> >
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 08:39:59AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:29:14PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 02:22:41PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> [...]
> >
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:29:14PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 02:22:41PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
[...]
>> >> My patch to get_maintainers.pl triggered a whole thread, while the
>> >> messa
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 04:15:08PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> We do have too may files lacking maintainers. See
> >>
> >> Subject: MAINTAINERS leaves too many files uncovered
> >> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 11:19:44 +0200
> >> Message-ID: <87mw8rumhb@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
>
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:34:46PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>
> > On 10/20/2014 04:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> What do you want to happen in this case?
> >> Won't this cause even more patches to fall to the floor?
> >>
> >> The benefit seems marginal, the
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:29:14PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 02:22:41PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:31:12AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> >> "Mi
Kirill Batuzov writes:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> >> On 20 October 2014 10:19, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> >> > Contributors rely on this script to find maintainers
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>
> > On 10/20/2014 04:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> What do you want to happen in this case?
> >> Won't this cause even more patches to fall to the floor?
> >>
> >> The benefit seems marginal, the risk high.
> >
> > I
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> On 20 October 2014 10:19, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> > Contributors rely on this script to find maintainers to copy. The
> >> > script falls
On 10/21/2014 03:34 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>
>> On 10/20/2014 04:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> What do you want to happen in this case?
>>> Won't this cause even more patches to fall to the floor?
>>>
>>> The benefit seems marginal, the risk high.
>>
>> I ag
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 10/20/2014 04:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> What do you want to happen in this case?
>> Won't this cause even more patches to fall to the floor?
>>
>> The benefit seems marginal, the risk high.
>
> I agree with Michael.
>
> Can we detect if get_maintainer.pl is in
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 02:22:41PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:31:12AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:19:52PM +010
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 02:22:41PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:31:12AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:19:52PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> >> On 20 O
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:31:12AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:19:52PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> >> On 20 October 2014 15:15, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 01:23:49PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > How about making "get_maintainer.pl --git-fallback" actually do what it
> > > says? Right now git it *not* used as fallback, it goes to git log
> > > unconditionally, even if there are hits in MAINTAINERS ...
> >
> >
Hi,
> > How about making "get_maintainer.pl --git-fallback" actually do what it
> > says? Right now git it *not* used as fallback, it goes to git log
> > unconditionally, even if there are hits in MAINTAINERS ...
>
> It does?
>
> How do you reproduce this behaviour?
>
> $ ./scripts/get_maint
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 01:09:19PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On Mo, 2014-10-20 at 20:38 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 10/20/2014 04:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > What do you want to happen in this case?
> > > Won't this cause even more patches to fall to the floor?
> > >
> > > The
On Mo, 2014-10-20 at 20:38 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 10/20/2014 04:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > What do you want to happen in this case?
> > Won't this cause even more patches to fall to the floor?
> >
> > The benefit seems marginal, the risk high.
>
> I agree with Michael.
>
> Can
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:31:12AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:19:52PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> On 20 October 2014 15:15, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:19:52PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 20 October 2014 15:15, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> >> On 20 October 2014 10:19, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> >> > Contributors
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 20 October 2014 10:19, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> > Contributors rely on this script to find maintainers to copy. The
>> > script falls back to git when no exact MAINTAINERS pattern matches.
>>
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 17:15:48 +0300
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On 20 October 2014 10:19, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > > Contributors rely on this script to find maintainers to copy. The
> > > script falls back to git when no e
On 20 October 2014 21:10, Don Slutz wrote:
> Here is a possible patch (based on a xen change). It adds the special
> supporter:THE REST
>
> Which is listed at the end of MAINTAINERS. I included a quick guess...
> +THE REST
> +M: Michael S. Tsirkin
> +M: Peter Maydell
> +L: qemu-devel@nongnu.o
On 10/20/14 15:03, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:19:52PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 20 October 2014 15:15, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 20 October 2014 10:19, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Contributors rely
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:19:52PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 20 October 2014 15:15, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> On 20 October 2014 10:19, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> > Contributors rely on this script to find maintaine
On 10/20/2014 04:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
What do you want to happen in this case?
Won't this cause even more patches to fall to the floor?
The benefit seems marginal, the risk high.
I agree with Michael.
Can we detect if get_maintainer.pl is invoked as a cccmd, and in this
case defa
On 10/20/2014 03:19 AM, Markus Armbruster 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 contributo
On 20 October 2014 15:15, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 20 October 2014 10:19, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> > Contributors rely on this script to find maintainers to copy. The
>> > script falls back to git when no exact MAINTAINER
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 20 October 2014 10:19, Markus Armbruster 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 contribut
On 20 October 2014 10:19, Markus Armbruster 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 contrib
I am happy with this so:
Reviewed-by: Don Slutz
-Don Slutz
On 10/20/14 05:19, Markus Armbruster 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, w
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 fal
39 matches
Mail list logo
