On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:52:53AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 19:34 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
It appears your scripts are already hooked into get_maintainers.pl which would seem the obvious place to do this? Sadly I don't do perl, though it looks like you're doing pretty much all the work on that anyway.
Sadly, no it's not the right place.
To query MAINTAINERS? I'd assume that's where you'd want to put that stuff?
There could be a modification to $1 (path) or some such.
Maybe a script like ./scripts/convert_commit_subject_to_subsystem_maintainer_taste or something.
Care to write one in sh/bash/perl/python/c/ocaml/c#?
Like I say I'd expect this to be a get_maintainers based lookup to dump some data out?
As far as I know, the only subsystem pedants^H^H^H^H^Hople that care much about the commit subject style are arch/x86 and sound.
If you look at the kernel you'll see quite a few subsystems which have some sort of standard practice which they do try to enforce, you shouldn't take silence as people being happy here - it's taken me some considerable time to get round to mentioning this, for example, and I might not have bothered if the patch had applied first time around. Like working against -next it's one of these things that would make your patches easier to deal with.
I can understand the desire of these subsystem maintainers to have a consistent style. I think though that requiring a subject header style without providing more than a general guideline is a but much.
The general guideline I tend to go with is that if what you're doing looks odd for the code you're submitting against for some reason you're doing something wrong unless you understand why you're doing something different and there's a good reason.
I'd use any other automated tool you want to provide.
Like I say, I'd expect the lookup from the database to be handled by get_maintainers.pl. Having a separate database would seem odd.