From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E19AC001DC for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 20:03:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229824AbjGZUDX (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2023 16:03:23 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46736 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229815AbjGZUDW (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2023 16:03:22 -0400 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BD471BF6 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 13:03:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7E0161CB6 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 20:03:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C391FC433C7; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 20:03:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1690401800; bh=VVHwf66l8pA8JawgRvoE5WwcQKi+dmka5tHGRFwa1yM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=g4VLiRDbwRTE5D2e1ZygoQiGkE8aYuemRt7GSFATpoPylmzCZfpY2no7d0ZUQMHNs N71VGPvICfZlDKrE39yYTBOtSM3VGOaXSUI03WSpSuzPSZif9JSiv2e2uHjghWL2Zw FuUXdFse777NtJz7vG4YPIdHKFpsl2KdUh1zm4B3mHtg0H43Xj7GIh86F/fo+XtBpA x4pySstbazZktAxEVTUAIxYTs1xXtC52MEPOZvjiGz8zB25v8r23Wb31jnYRU2kzYv SOxIvb5TfcsRfbjSm1W6eIYBr6OcxYI5XO/yy5v1ZDHZBHGDzRIKo+yXcvdG3RNmK9 ow4ALY8QeqZKg== Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 13:03:18 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Joe Perches , Krzysztof Kozlowski , geert@linux-m68k.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org, mario.limonciello@amd.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] scripts: get_maintainer: steer people away from using file paths Message-ID: <20230726130318.099f96fc@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20230726151515.1650519-1-kuba@kernel.org> <11ec5b3819ff17c7013348b766eab571eee5ca96.camel@perches.com> <20230726092312.799503d6@kernel.org> <20230726112031.61bd0c62@kernel.org> <20230726114817.1bd52d48@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 12:37:14 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > The very first case I actually looked at wasn't even some > "inexperienced developer" - the kind you claim is the problem, and the > kind you claim this would help. > > It was a random fix from Florian Westphal, who has been around for > more than a decade, is credited with over 1500 commits (and mentioned > in many many more), and knows what he's doing. > > He has a patch that references a "Fixes:" line, and clearly didn't go > through the get_maintainer script as such, and the > netdev/cc_maintainers script complains as a result. Florian is sending us patches from his tree which have already been reviewed on the netfilter mailing list. It's basically a PR. There's a handful of people who do that and I don't care enough to silence it because ignoring the false positives is a noop. When some noob sends a patch which actually *should* have been CCed to more people I need to either go and CC that person in myself. Or tell the noob to repost. IOW solving the _actually_ missing CCs is higher priority for me. > So Jakub, I think you are barking *entirely* up the wrong tree. > > The reason you blame this on mis-use by inexperienced maintainers is > that you probably never even react to the experienced ones that do the > very same things, because you trust them and never bother to tell them > "you didn't use get_maintainers to get the precise list of people that > patchwork complains about". > > So the problem is not in get_maintainers. It's in having expectations > that are simply not realistic. > > You seem to think that those inexperienced developers should do something that > > (a) experienced developers don't do *EITHER* > > (b) the scripts complain about instead of just doing > > and then you think that changing get_maintainers would somehow hide the issue. > > You definitely shouldn't require inexperienced developers to do > something that clearly experienced people then don't do. > > Now, maybe I happened to just randomly pick a patchwork entry that was > very unusual. But I doubt it.