Add Designated Reviewer (R:) to MAINTAINERS (plus a test case)
v2 cover Add Designated Reviewer (R:) to MAINTAINERS (plus a test case)
This follows up from a conversation after the April x86 community call, in which I had the following action: Lars to propose fixing CC issue in xen.git:MAINTAINERS copying the R section entries from Linux.git:MAINTAINERS (will need changes to get_maintainers.pl also)
On 27/4/18 Juergen gave a RAB via IRC
Lars Kurth (2):
Add Brian Woods as Designated reviewer to AMD IOMMU and AMD SVM Add Designated Reviewer (R:) to MAINTAINERS file and add support for
it in get_maintainer.pl
MAINTAINERS | 4 ++++ scripts/get_maintainer.pl | 24 +++++++++++------------- 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
Signature · 7 lines
2.13.0 _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
PATCH v2 1/2 Add Brian Woods as Designated reviewer to AMD IOMMU and AMD SVM
This was discussed in an IRC discussion post the April x86 meeting. On 27/4/18 Juergen gave a RAB via IRC
--- MAINTAINERS | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
MAINTAINERS +2 -0
@@ -142,12 +142,14 @@ F: tools/libacpi/ AMD IOMMU M: Suravee Suthikulpanit <[email protected]> +R: Brian Woods <[email protected]> S: Maintained F: xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/ AMD SVM M: Boris Ostrovsky <[email protected]> M: Suravee Suthikulpanit <[email protected]> +R: Brian Woods <[email protected]> S: Supported F: xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/ F: xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu_amd.c
Signature · 7 lines
2.13.0 _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
PATCH v2 2/2 Add Designated Reviewer (R:) to MAINTAINERS file and add support for it in get_maintainer.pl
In reply to Lars KurthThe syntax has been copied from the Linux Maintainers file. I moved the following Linux get_maintainer.pl patches to Xen, fixing up some merge issues (and a bug).
The get_maintainer.pl changes were based on the following git commits
* https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/scripts/get_maintainer.pl?id=
* c1c3f2c906e35bcb6e4cdf5b8e077660fead14fe
* 4f07510df2e8c47fd65b8ffaaf6c5d334d59d598
I also removed code related to
P: Person (obsolete)
which is in the Linux MAINTAINER's file, but not ours. I may not have caught all instances though.
I have tested on a number of files using mock entries in MAINTAINERS using ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f ...
I also tested --nor to disable the support and it worked as expected.
--- MAINTAINERS | 2 ++ scripts/get_maintainer.pl | 24 +++++++++++------------- 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
MAINTAINERS +2 -0
@@ -60,6 +60,8 @@ appropriate branch. Descriptions of section entries: M: Mail patches to: FullName <address@domain> + R: Designated reviewer: FullName <address@domain> + These reviewers should be CCed on patches. L: Mailing list that is relevant to this area W: Web-page with status/info T: SCM tree type and location. Type is one of: git, hg, quilt, stgit.
scripts/get_maintainer.pl +11 -13
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ my $xen_path = "./"; my $email = 1; my $email_usename = 1; my $email_maintainer = 1; +my $email_reviewer = 1; my $email_list = 1; my $email_subscriber_list = 0; my $email_git_penguin_chiefs = 0;
@@ -199,6 +200,7 @@ if (!GetOptions( 'mailmap!' => \$email_use_mailmap, 'drop_the_rest_supporter!' => \$email_drop_the_rest_supporter_if_supporter_found, 'm!' => \$email_maintainer, + 'r!' => \$email_reviewer, 'n!' => \$email_usename, 'l!' => \$email_list, 's!' => \$email_subscriber_list,
@@ -257,7 +259,8 @@ if ($sections) { } if ($email && - ($email_maintainer + $email_list + $email_subscriber_list + + ($email_maintainer + $email_reviewer + + $email_list + $email_subscriber_list + $email_git + $email_git_penguin_chiefs + $email_git_blame) == 0) { die "$P: Please select at least 1 email option\n"; }
@@ -791,6 +794,7 @@ MAINTAINER field selection options: --hg-since => hg history to use (default: $email_hg_since) --interactive => display a menu (mostly useful if used with the --git option) --m => include maintainer(s) if any + --r => include reviewer(s) if any --n => include name 'Full Name <addr\@domain.tld>' --l => include list(s) if any --s => include subscriber only list(s) if any
@@ -817,7 +821,7 @@ Other options: --help => show this help information Default options: - [--email --nogit --git-fallback --m --n --l --multiline -pattern-depth=0 + [--email --nogit --git-fallback --m --r --n --l --multiline -pattern-depth=0 --remove-duplicates --rolestats] Notes:
@@ -1080,21 +1084,15 @@ sub add_categories { } } elsif ($ptype eq "M") { my ($name, $address) = parse_email($pvalue); - if ($name eq "") { - if ($i > 0) { - my $tv = $typevalue[$i - 1]; - if ($tv =~ m/^([A-Z]):\s*(.*)/) { - if ($1 eq "P") { - $name = $2; - $pvalue = format_email($name, $address, $email_usename); - } - } - } - } if ($email_maintainer) { my $role = get_maintainer_role($i); push_email_addresses($pvalue, $role); } + } elsif ($ptype eq "R") { + my ($name, $address) = parse_email($pvalue); + if ($email_reviewer) { + push_email_addresses($pvalue, 'reviewer'); + } } elsif ($ptype eq "T") { push(@scm, $pvalue); } elsif ($ptype eq "W") {
Signature · 7 lines
2.13.0 _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Quoted 23 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line · On 27.04.18 at 20:01, <[email protected]> wrote:
This follows up from a conversation after the April x86 community call, in which I had
the following action: Lars to propose fixing CC issue in xen.git:MAINTAINERS copying
the R section entries from Linux.git:MAINTAINERS (will need changes to get_maintainers.pl also)On 27/4/18 Juergen gave a RAB via IRC
Cc Lars Kurth <[email protected]>Cc Andrew Cooper <[email protected]>Cc George Dunlap <[email protected]>Cc Ian Jackson <[email protected]>Cc Jan Beulich <[email protected]>Cc Julien Grall <[email protected]>Cc Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <[email protected]>Cc Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]>Cc Tim Deegan <[email protected]>Cc Wei Liu <[email protected]>Cc Brian Woods <[email protected]>Cc Juergen Gross <[email protected]>
Quoted 7 lines
Release-acked-by Juergen Gross <[email protected]>Acked-by Wei Liu <[email protected]>Lars Kurth (2):
Add Brian Woods as Designated reviewer to AMD IOMMU and AMD SVM Add Designated Reviewer (R:) toMAINTAINERSfile and add support for
it in get_maintainer.pl
The order of the patches has been unexpectedly swapped, and seems wrong to me now; granted this is only cosmetic if both go in at the same time.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Quoted 23 lines · Jan Beulich
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line · On 27.04.18 at 20:01, <[email protected]> wrote:
This follows up from a conversation after the April x86 community call, in which I had
the following action: Lars to propose fixing CC issue in xen.git:MAINTAINERS copying
the R section entries from Linux.git:MAINTAINERS (will need changes to get_maintainers.pl also)On 27/4/18 Juergen gave a RAB via IRC
Cc Lars Kurth <[email protected]>Cc Andrew Cooper <[email protected]>Cc George Dunlap <[email protected]>Cc Ian Jackson <[email protected]>Cc Jan Beulich <[email protected]>Cc Julien Grall <[email protected]>Cc Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <[email protected]>Cc Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]>Cc Tim Deegan <[email protected]>Cc Wei Liu <[email protected]>Cc Brian Woods <[email protected]>Cc Juergen Gross <[email protected]>
Quoted 7 lines
Release-acked-by Juergen Gross <[email protected]>Acked-by Wei Liu <[email protected]>Lars Kurth (2):
Add Brian Woods as Designated reviewer to AMD IOMMU and AMD SVM Add Designated Reviewer (R:) toMAINTAINERSfile and add support for
it in get_maintainer.pl
The order of the patches has been unexpectedly swapped, and seems wrong to me now; granted this is only cosmetic if both go in at the same time.
That is my fault: I got into trouble with git and must have done something wrong. If it helps, I can switch the order and re-send.
The first patch "Add Brian Woods..." depends on syntax and tools support introduced by "Add Designated Reviewer (R:)...". I would say that they probably should go in together.
Lars
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Quoted 38 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line · On 30.04.18 at 10:21, <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 2 lines · Jan Beulich
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line · On 27.04.18 at 20:01, <[email protected]> wrote:
This follows up from a conversation after the April x86 community call,
in
Quoted 2 lines
which I had
the following action: Lars to propose fixing CC issue inxen.git:MAINTAINERS
Quoted 19 lines
copying
the R section entries from Linux.git:MAINTAINERS (will need changes to get_maintainers.pl also)On 27/4/18 Juergen gave a RAB via IRC
Cc Lars Kurth <[email protected]>Cc Andrew Cooper <[email protected]>Cc George Dunlap <[email protected]>Cc Ian Jackson <[email protected]>Cc Jan Beulich <[email protected]>Cc Julien Grall <[email protected]>Cc Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <[email protected]>Cc Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]>Cc Tim Deegan <[email protected]>Cc Wei Liu <[email protected]>Cc Brian Woods <[email protected]>Cc Juergen Gross <[email protected]>Quoted 7 lines
Release-acked-by Juergen Gross <[email protected]>Acked-by Wei Liu <[email protected]>Lars Kurth (2):
Add Brian Woods as Designated reviewer to AMD IOMMU and AMD SVM Add Designated Reviewer (R:) toMAINTAINERSfile and add support for
it in get_maintainer.pl
Quoted 5 lines
The order of the patches has been unexpectedly swapped, and seems wrong to me now; granted this is only cosmetic if both go in at the same time.
That is my fault: I got into trouble with git and must have done something wrong. If it helps, I can switch the order and re-send.
I don't think that's necessary - whoever ends up committing them can easily enough switch them around. I would commit them right away, if only I was really clear whether we've all settled on this.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH for-4.11 v2 0/2] Add Designated Reviewer (R:) to MAINTAINERS (plus a test case)"):
Quoted 2 lines · On 30.04.18 at 10:21, <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 1 line
On 30/04/2018, 08:57, "Jan Beulich" <[email protected]> wrote:
...
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
That is my fault: I got into trouble with git and must have done something wrong. If it helps, I can switch the order and re-send.
I don't think that's necessary - whoever ends up committing them can easily enough switch them around.
I will do so when all is clear.
Quoted 2 lines
I would commit them right away, if only I was
really clear whether we've all settled on this.
I have been following this. I think this is a good idea.
Basically it is a way for someone to declare an interest in an area of code, and get copied on changes, without having to grant that person any formal decisionmaking authority.
If this is not sufficiently clear, do you think we should document this more clearly ? Perhaps we could write:
+ R: Designated reviewer: FullName <address@domain>
+ Reviewers should be CCed on patches. However, they do not + have a formal governance role, and are listed here + simply because of their own request.
or something ?
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
On 30/04/2018, 14:23, "Ian Jackson" <[email protected]> wrote:
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH for-4.11 v2 0/2] Add Designated Reviewer (R:) to MAINTAINERS (plus a test case)"):
> On 30.04.18 at 10:21, <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 30/04/2018, 08:57, "Jan Beulich" <[email protected]> wrote:
...
> > That is my fault: I got into trouble with git and must have done something
> > wrong. If it helps, I can switch the order and re-send.
>
> I don't think that's necessary - whoever ends up committing them can easily
> enough switch them around.
I will do so when all is clear.
> I would commit them right away, if only I was > really clear whether we've all settled on this.
I have been following this. I think this is a good idea.
Basically it is a way for someone to declare an interest in an area of code, and get copied on changes, without having to grant that person any formal decisionmaking authority.
If this is not sufficiently clear, do you think we should document this more clearly ? Perhaps we could write:
+ R: Designated reviewer: FullName <address@domain>
+ Reviewers should be CCed on patches. However, they do not
+ have a formal governance role, and are listed here
+ simply because of their own request.
or something ?
That is clearer: I copied the text from the Linux maintainers file. @Jan: let me know whether you want me to re-roll the series with the text change.
Lars
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Quoted 32 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line · On 30.04.18 at 15:29, <[email protected]> wrote:
On 30/04/2018, 14:23, "Ian Jackson" <[email protected]> wrote:
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH for-4.11 v2 0/2] Add Designated Reviewer
(R:) toMAINTAINERS(plus a test case)"):Quoted 2 lines · On 30.04.18 at 10:21, <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 1 line · Jan Beulich
...
> > That is my fault: I got into trouble with git and must have done
somethingQuoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
wrong. If it helps, I can switch the order and re-send.
I don't think that's necessary - whoever ends up committing them can
easily
Quoted 1 line
enough switch them around.
I will do so when all is clear.
> I would commit them right away, if only I was > really clear whether we've all settled on this.
I have been following this. I think this is a good idea.
Basically it is a way for someone to declare an interest in an area of code, and get copied on changes, without having to grant that person any formal decisionmaking authority.
If this is not sufficiently clear, do you think we should document this more clearly ? Perhaps we could write:
Quoted 8 lines
+ R: Designated reviewer: FullName <address@domain>
+ Reviewers should be CCed on patches. However, they do not
+ have a formal governance role, and are listed here
+ simply because of their own request.or something ?
That is clearer: I copied the text from the Linux maintainers file.
Ah, indeed. So far it wasn't really clear to me whether "designated" implies further privilege.
Quoted 2 lines
@Jan: let me know whether you want me to re-roll the series with the text change.
Since I take Ian's reply as him volunteering to commit both, that would then really be up to him.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH for-4.11 v2 0/2] Add Designated Reviewer (R:) to MAINTAINERS (plus a test case)"):
Quoted 5 lines · On 30.04.18 at 15:29, <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 1 line
That is clearer: I copied the text from the Linux maintainers file.
Ah, indeed. So far it wasn't really clear to me whether "designated" implies further privilege.
Right. It does have such a connotation. Hence my suggestion. I take it that you are happy with this patch pair now.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
@Jan: let me know whether you want me to re-roll the series with the text change.
Since I take Ian's reply as him volunteering to commit both, that would then really be up to him.
Well, I wouldn't want to just commit willy-nilly something that you had unresolved questions about. But I think we are all content now, so, yes, Lars, please respin the two patches with that text. In the right order please :-).
Thanks,
Ia.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line · On 30.04.18 at 16:41, <[email protected]> wrote:
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH for-4.11 v2 0/2] Add Designated Reviewer (R:) to
MAINTAINERS(plus a test case)"):Quoted 5 lines · On 30.04.18 at 15:29, <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 1 line
That is clearer: I copied the text from the Linux maintainers file.
Ah, indeed. So far it wasn't really clear to me whether "designated" implies further privilege.
Right. It does have such a connotation. Hence my suggestion. I take it that you are happy with this patch pair now.
Yes.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Quoted 24 lines · Ian Jackson
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH for-4.11 v2 0/2] Add Designated Reviewer (R:) to
MAINTAINERS(plus a test case)"):Quoted 2 lines · On 30.04.18 at 10:21, <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 1 line
On 30/04/2018, 08:57, "Jan Beulich" <[email protected]> wrote:
...
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
That is my fault: I got into trouble with git and must have done something wrong. If it helps, I can switch the order and re-send.
I don't think that's necessary - whoever ends up committing them can easily enough switch them around.
I will do so when all is clear.
Quoted 2 lines
I would commit them right away, if only I was
really clear whether we've all settled on this.I have been following this. I think this is a good idea.
Basically it is a way for someone to declare an interest in an area of code, and get copied on changes, without having to grant that person any formal decisionmaking authority.
If this is not sufficiently clear, do you think we should document this more clearly ? Perhaps we could write:
Quoted 6 lines
+ R: Designated reviewer: FullName <address@domain>
+ Reviewers should be CCed on patches. However, they do not + have a formal governance role, and are listed here + simply because of their own request.or something ?
+1 to this description; but I took Jan to mean that it wasn't clear whether we as a community had decided having such a framework was a good one (although it sounded like he was personally in favor).
Lazy consensus says that if people don't object, it's assumed that they're OK with it. The first version of this series was posted 25 April; if people are concerned about giving people a chance to object, we could wait until 2 May to check it in. That would give people a week in which to object if they want.
I wouldn't object to someone checking it in now, however; I think all the committers have had a chance to object, and most have expressed support.
-George
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
On 30/04/2018, 14:39, "George Dunlap" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 04/30/2018 02:23 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH for-4.11 v2 0/2] Add Designated Reviewer (R:) to MAINTAINERS (plus a test case)"):
>> On 30.04.18 at 10:21, <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 30/04/2018, 08:57, "Jan Beulich" <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
>>> That is my fault: I got into trouble with git and must have done something
>>> wrong. If it helps, I can switch the order and re-send.
>>
>> I don't think that's necessary - whoever ends up committing them can easily
>> enough switch them around.
>
> I will do so when all is clear.
>
>> I would commit them right away, if only I was
>> really clear whether we've all settled on this.
>
> I have been following this. I think this is a good idea.
>
> Basically it is a way for someone to declare an interest in an area of
> code, and get copied on changes, without having to grant that person
> any formal decisionmaking authority.
>
> If this is not sufficiently clear, do you think we should document
> this more clearly ? Perhaps we could write:
>
> + R: Designated reviewer: FullName <address@domain>
> + Reviewers should be CCed on patches. However, they do not
> + have a formal governance role, and are listed here
> + simply because of their own request.
>
> or something ?
+1 to this description; but I took Jan to mean that it wasn't clear whether we as a community had decided having such a framework was a good one (although it sounded like he was personally in favor).
Lazy consensus says that if people don't object, it's assumed that they're OK with it. The first version of this series was posted 25 April; if people are concerned about giving people a chance to object, we could wait until 2 May to check it in. That would give people a week in which to object if they want.
I wouldn't object to someone checking it in now, however; I think all the committers have had a chance to object, and most have expressed support.
Agreed. And it was discussed at the x86 community call, which is why I put the patch together
Lars
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Lars Kurth writes ("Re: [PATCH for-4.11 v2 0/2] Add Designated Reviewer (R:) to MAINTAINERS (plus a test case)"):
Quoted 6 lines
On 30/04/2018, 14:39, "George Dunlap" <[email protected]> wrote:
I wouldn't object to someone checking it in now, however; I think all the committers have had a chance to object, and most have expressed support.
Agreed. And it was discussed at the x86 community call, which is why I put the patch together
I'm sure that the x86 community call is very useful and as you can tell I support this proposal, but the x86 community call cannot make decisions about what should be committed.
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Quoted 24 lines · Ian Jackson
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH for-4.11 v2 0/2] Add Designated Reviewer (R:) to
MAINTAINERS(plus a test case)"):Quoted 2 lines · On 30.04.18 at 10:21, <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 1 line
On 30/04/2018, 08:57, "Jan Beulich" <[email protected]> wrote:
...
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
That is my fault: I got into trouble with git and must have done something wrong. If it helps, I can switch the order and re-send.
I don't think that's necessary - whoever ends up committing them can easily enough switch them around.
I will do so when all is clear.
Quoted 2 lines
I would commit them right away, if only I was
really clear whether we've all settled on this.I have been following this. I think this is a good idea.
Basically it is a way for someone to declare an interest in an area of code, and get copied on changes, without having to grant that person any formal decisionmaking authority.
If this is not sufficiently clear, do you think we should document this more clearly ? Perhaps we could write:
Quoted 6 lines
+ R: Designated reviewer: FullName <address@domain>
+ Reviewers should be CCed on patches. However, they do not + have a formal governance role, and are listed here + simply because of their own request.or something ?
+1 to this description; but I took Jan to mean that it wasn't clear whether we as a community had decided having such a framework was a good one (although it sounded like he was personally in favor).
Lazy consensus says that if people don't object, it's assumed that they're OK with it. The first version of this series was posted 25 April; if people are concerned about giving people a chance to object, we could wait until 2 May to check it in. That would give people a week in which to object if they want.
I wouldn't object to someone checking it in now, however; I think all the committers have had a chance to object, and most have expressed support.
-George
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel