On 12/6/23 18:38, Joe Perches wrote:
On Wed, 2023-12-06 at 18:23 +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
On 12/6/23 10:12, David Gow wrote:
I'm pretty happy with this personally, though I definitely think we need the support for tests which aren't just executable scripts (e.g. the docs in patch 6).
The get_maintailer.pl bits, and hence the requirement to not include '@', feel a little bit 'off': I'd rather get_maintainer.pl kept emails and tests separate by some other means (either having --test _only_ print tests, not emails at all, or by giving them a prefix like 'TEST:' or something). But that is diverging more from the existing behaviour of get_maintainer.pl, so I could go either way.
Otherwise, this looks pretty good. I'll give it a proper test tomorrow alongside the other patches.
Thanks for the review, David!
Yeah, I don't like the '@' bit myself, but it seems to be the path of least resistance right now (not necessarily the best one, of course).
I'm up for adding an option to get_maintainer.pl that disables email output, if people like that, though.
That already exists though I don't understand the specific requirement here
--nom --nol --nor
from $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --help [] --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 [] Most options have both positive and negative forms. The negative forms for --<foo> are --no<foo> and --no-<foo>.
Thanks, Joe!
Yeah, I already explored that way, but it seems to be explicitly forbidden:
$ scripts/get_maintainer.pl --nom --nol --nor 0001-dt-bindings-mailbox-convert-bcm2835-mbox-bindings-to.patch scripts/get_maintainer.pl: Please select at least 1 email option
So, I assumed there is a reason and an intention behind this behavior and went the other way.
Nick