On 29 June 2015 at 11:23, Laszlo Ersek <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/29/15 12:00, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 29 June 2015 at 10:54, Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Looks like hw/i386/ does not work, hw/i386/* >>> seems to work better. >> >> This is kind of vague... The documentation at the top >> of MAINTAINERS says the difference is that "hw/i386/" >> means "all files in and below hw/i386/", whereas >> "hw/i386/*" means "all files in hw/i386, but not below" >> (so won't match anything in hw/i386/kvm/ or hw/i386/xen/). >> Is this the effect you're trying to achieve? It would >> be nice to mention the symptoms of the problem this patch >> is fixing in the commit message... > > Assume I format the patch series: > > http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-06/msg06677.html > > into a single file, with > > git format-patch --notes --cover-letter --numbered --stdout > > and then run scripts/get_maintainer.pl on the resultant patch series file. > > Before this patch, I get: > > Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> (maintainer:X86) > Richard Henderson <[email protected]> (maintainer:X86) > Eduardo Habkost <[email protected]> (maintainer:X86) > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]> (supporter:PC) > > Since Michael was listed at the bottom of that list, I didn't CC him. (I > wanted to give him a breather after my many PXB iterations.) > > Turns out that wasn't a good choice. With this patch for MAINTAINERS in > place, the script reports Michael at the top: > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]> (supporter:PC) > Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> (maintainer:X86) > Richard Henderson <[email protected]> (maintainer:X86) > Eduardo Habkost <[email protected]> (maintainer:X86) > > Maybe I should have considered something else than just the ordering of > the names in the list, not sure... > > Hm, yes, this is at least partly (if not fully) my fault. MAINTAINERS says > > S: Status, one of the following: > Supported: Someone is actually paid to look after this. > Maintained: Someone actually looks after it. > > I didn't realize this distinction, and I also didn't realize that > "supporter" and "maintainer" were derived directly from "Supported" and > "Maintained". > > It would be helpful if developers with more jurisdiction (according to > the Supported / Maintained / Odd Fixes classification) were listed > higher in the output.
Mmm. If this is what we're trying to fix then messing with our MAINTAINERS file seems like the wrong thing. Personally I think that the best approach would be just to cc everybody that get_maintainers.pl says is a maintainer or supporter; they're in the file because they *want* this email, after all... If your patchset touches two areas then that doesn't mean it's OK to drop a 'maintainer' email for area 2 just because area 1 happens to have two or three 'supporter' emails listed. thanks -- PMM
