[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-4.11 v3 1/1] Add new add_maintainers.pl script to optimise the workflow when using git format-patch with get_maintainer.pl
On 08/05/2018, 11:48, "Ian Jackson" <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Lars Kurth writes ("Re: [PATCH for-4.11 v3 1/1] Add new add_maintainers.pl script to optimise the workflow when using git format-patch with get_maintainer.pl"): > On 04/05/2018, 18:43, "Ian Jackson" <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > +my $patch_prefix = "0"; # Use a 0, such that v* does not get picked up > > + # Obviously this will only work for series with > > + # < 999 patches, which should be fine > > I don't understand the purpose of this: > > This is a bit of a hack! > > There are several different usage patterns for g-f-p when working on a series, > which result in $patch_dir being used differently. In one case > a) the user stores patches for multiple series in $patch_dir > Thus, $patchdir may contain files starting with 0000*, 0001*, ... v1-000*, v2-000* OMG. It had not even occurred to me that anyone would do that. But I think this workflow choice is independent of --reroll-count, which is mainly used to control patch subject lines. A workflow where *different* patch series are mingled in the same directory cannot be supported, because what when their reroll counts collide? So these must be different versions (different rerolls) of the same series. I suggest the following approach: Test whether v<reroll-count>-0000-cover-letter.patch exists. If it does, expect every patch to start with v<reroll-count>. If it does not, expect simply 0000-cover-letter.patch to exist, and every patch to start with just the patch number. So I guess $patch_prefix would be '[0-9]' or "v${reroll_count}-[0-9]". That makes sense > > +if ($rerollcount > 0) { > > + $patch_prefix = "v".$rerollcount; > > +} > ... > > +my $pattern = $patch_dir.'/'.$patch_prefix.'*'.$patch_ext; > > +print "Then perform:\n". > > + "git send-email -to xen-devel\@lists.xenproject.org ". > > + $patch_dir.'/'.$patch_prefix."*.patch"."\n"; > > What files matching *.patch exist here that should not be processed ? > If the answer is none then $patch_prefix is redundant, I think ? > > Well, it depends. G-s-m will send everything in $patch_dir. > I have not checked whether it ignores backups (~ .bak), but I assume it does. > In any case, for scenario a1) and a2) I do need to select which files > to select in g-s-e. For the purposes of documentation and informative messages like this one, I think you can assume workflow (b). I think workflow (a) is not to be recommended. (Anyway, who keeps their g-f-p output directories ? I don't...) Sure: I think right now the documentation and messages don't cover this. So if we move to the approach you suggested, all should be fine. > > + if (! -e $get_maintainer) { > > + die "$tool: The tool requires $get_maintainer\n"; > > I still don't like this check. What if the user specifies an > implementation of $get_maintainer which is on the PATH ? > > The way get_maintainer.pl works is that it has to be called in the root > directory of the Xen and Linux trees. There are some checks in the > tool that throw an error when you call it from another location. You have misunderstood my remark. I am not talking about the cwd. I mean, if the user says --get-maintainer=generic-get-maintaienr where /usr/bin/generic-get-maintaienr exists. OK: simply removing the check would just do this Lars _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |