[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] Allow get_maintainer.pl / add_maintainers.pl scripts to be called outside of xen.git
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019, Lars Kurth wrote: > 16/08/2019, 06:43, "Lars Kurth" <lars.kurth.xen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 16 Aug 2019, at 14:28, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 16/08/2019 13:17, Lars Kurth wrote: > >> On 16/08/2019, 11:01, "Julien Grall" <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> From my understanding, any use on mini-os.git & co will be > legitimate. However, > >> we still print the WARNING in those cases. > >> Usually WARNING means something needs attention. As most of > the users will > >> likely copy/paste from the wiki, we are going to have report > asking why the > >> WARNING is there. > >> I think it would make sense to try to downgrade the message a > bit when possible. > >> For instance, we could check if the section "THE REST" is present > in the file > >> MAINTAINERS. If not, this is likely not a file we are able to > support. > >> I thought about this and it is not as easy as it seems, because > the script only parses > >> M: ... &c lines > > > > The script is able to parse the section name. See get_maintainer_role(). > > > > Although, I am not sure how early the function can get called. > > > > But... > > That may make it feasible to go down that route. > Incidentially both Linux as well as QEMU MAINTAINERs files use the same > syntax > as us (with a few extra tags which we don't have) > > Not sure whether this would be a problem > > >> Maybe the best way to address this would be to include some identifier > into the > >> MAINTAINERS file (after the header with all the definitions). > >> FORMAT: xen-project-maintainers <version> > >> (note that this is not currently picked up by the tool) > >> Or > >> V: xen-project-maintainers <version> > >> (note that this would be picked up by the tool) > > > > Any of these solutions are also a potential alternative. > > I will see what others think and take it from there > > Hi all. I would like to get this resolved and was looking for > opinions. The thread is about enabling usage of get_maintainer.pl / > add_maintainers.pl on sister repositories for xen.git, such as > xtf.git, osstest.git, mini-os.git, ... to have a consistent tools story > and make patch submission for newcomers easier. We have > several options: > > 1) Warn if the tools are applied outside the Xen tree > Julian felt this is likely confusing > > 2) Do not warn under some conditions > 2.1) Use THE REST as identifier to avoid the warning > Cons: Warning would disappear because Linux and QEMU also have THE REST > This may not be an issue as both MAINTAINERS files follow the same format > However, there may be subtle differences in behaviour for unusual options > for the get_maintainer.pl script as we have not been tracking all changes > > 2.2) Introduce a unique identifier in MAINTAINERS > This would imply introducing a unique identifier for xen related > MAINTAINER files > Pros: More accurate > Cons: Pollutes file format > > I don’t have a strong opinion and will follow majority consensus. > Maybe people can vote on the options and I will just implement > what most people prefer Any of these options are OK, really. Aside from the other subprojects, I think one interesting case to consider is when a user calls get_maintainer.pl on tools/qemu-xen-dir, which should return a warning or error because that's QEMU, not Xen. So, I think it would be best to go with 2.2) introducing a new tag to distinguish the Xen MAINTAINERS file from the QEMU MAINTAINERS file, so that we can properly return a warning for tools/qemu-xen-dir, but at the same time it could work fine for mini-os.git. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |