| Message ID | 1490014548-15083-6-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 03/20/2017 07:55 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> > --- > MAINTAINERS | 11 +++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> By the way, where do we stand on the idea of having checkpatch.pl reject patches that introduce new files without mentioning a maintainer?
Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> writes: > On 03/20/2017 07:55 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> >> --- >> MAINTAINERS | 11 +++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) > > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> > > By the way, where do we stand on the idea of having checkpatch.pl reject > patches that introduce new files without mentioning a maintainer? Stuck. Thomas hasn't followed up on his RFC PATCH because he's afraid of false positives. I encouraged him to rescue at least "[RFC PATCH 4/5] checkpatch: emit a reminder about MAINTAINERS on file add/move/delete", and I'm now encouraging him again.
On 21.03.2017 08:17, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> writes: > >> On 03/20/2017 07:55 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> MAINTAINERS | 11 +++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) >> >> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> >> >> By the way, where do we stand on the idea of having checkpatch.pl reject >> patches that introduce new files without mentioning a maintainer? > > Stuck. Thomas hasn't followed up on his RFC PATCH because he's afraid > of false positives. I encouraged him to rescue at least "[RFC PATCH > 4/5] checkpatch: emit a reminder about MAINTAINERS on file > add/move/delete", and I'm now encouraging him again. Well, the patch series is out there, and there haven't been any (valid) requests to rework it, so if you like, feel free to merge it: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-01/msg05740.html But as mentioned here: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-01/msg05753.html there will be quite a bunch of false-positives. So we'd either have to live with those or we have to come up with a smarter approach to handle this issue (e.g. by running get_maintainers.pl on the affected files). Thomas
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index bf1aafb..3f20288 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -1218,6 +1218,15 @@ M: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org> S: Maintained F: backends/baum.c +Command line option argument parsing +M: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> +S: Supported +F: include/qemu/option.h +F: tests/test-keyval.c +F: tests/test-qemu-opts.c +F: util/keyval.c +F: util/qemu-option.c + Coverity model M: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> S: Supported @@ -1352,7 +1361,9 @@ X: include/qapi/qmp/ F: include/qapi/qmp/dispatch.h F: tests/qapi-schema/ F: tests/test-*-visitor.c +F: tests/test-qapi-*.c F: tests/test-qmp-*.c +F: tests/test-visitor-serialization.c F: scripts/qapi* F: docs/qapi* T: git git://repo.or.cz/qemu/armbru.git qapi-next
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> --- MAINTAINERS | 11 +++++++++++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)