Re: [PATCH v2] scripts: get_maintainer: steer people away from using file paths

["Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@amd.com>]

On 7/26/2023 1:29 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 at 11:20, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> You are special,
> 
> So my mother tells me.
> 
>> you presumably use it to find who to report
>> regressions to, and who to pull into conversations.
> 
> Yes. So what happens is that I get cc'd on bug reports for various
> issues, and particularly for oops reports I basically have a function
> name to grep for (maybe a pathname if it went through the full
> decoding).
> 
> I'm NOT interested in having to either remember all people off-hand,
> or going through the MAINTAINERS file by hand.
> 
>> This tool is primarily used by _developers_ to find _maintainers_.
> 
> Well, maybe.
> 
> But even if that is true, I don't see why you hate the pathname thing
> even for that case. I bet developers use it for that exact same
> reason, ie they are modifying a file, and they go "I want to know who
> the maintainer for this file is".
> 
> I do not understand why you think a patch is somehow magically more
> important or relevant than a filename.
> 
>                 Linus
If the goal is to get people who are involved with a file, how about 
some variation of:

git log --pretty=format:%ae $PATH | sort | uniq

Granted this is going to be overkill, for example I can see on 
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c that it would email 198 people.