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
38 matches
Mail list logo
