Re: [PATCH 0/3] get_maintainer: add patch-only keyword matching

[Kees Cook]

On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 08:24:58AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:19 PM Justin Stitt <justinstitt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > This series aims to add "D:" which behaves exactly the same as "K:" but
> > works only on patch files.
> >
> > The goal of this is to reduce noise when folks use get_maintainer on
> > tree files as opposed to patches. This use case should be steered away
> > from [1] but "D:" should help maintainers reduce noise in their inboxes
> > regardless, especially when matching omnipresent keywords like [2]. In
> > the event of [2] Kees would be to/cc'd from folks running get_maintainer
> > on _any_ file containing "__counted_by". The number of these files is
> > rising and I fear for his inbox as his goal, as I understand it, is to
> > simply monitor the introduction of new __counted_by annotations to
> > ensure accurate semantics.
> 
> Something like this (whether this series or a different approach)
> would be helpful to me as well; we use K: to get cc'ed on patches
> mentioning clang or llvm, but our ML also then ends up getting cc'ed
> on every follow up patch to most files.
> 
> This is causing excessive posts on our ML. As a result, it's a
> struggle to get folks to cc themselves to the ML, which puts the code
> review burden on fewer people.
> 
> Whether it's a new D: or refinement to the behavior of K:, I applaud
> the effort.  Hopefully we can find an approach that works for
> everyone.

Yes, please! I would use this immediately -- there are a bunch of places
where pstore, strings, hardening, etc all want review if certain
functions or structures are changed in a patch, but we're not
maintainers of the files they appear in.

> > Justin Stitt (3):
> >       MAINTAINERS: add documentation for D:
> >       get_maintainer: add patch-only pattern matching type

Can we squash these two changes together, and then likely add some
patches for moving things out of K: ?

-- 
Kees Cook