From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andrea Corallo Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#69646: [PATCH] Have insert 'submit-emacs-patch' maintainers into X-Debbugs-Cc Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2024 12:41:27 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87frx0eneh.fsf@posteo.net> <871q8kel1w.fsf@posteo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="40123"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: 69646@debbugs.gnu.org To: Philip Kaludercic Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 08 18:43:01 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1rieFI-000ACk-JZ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2024 18:43:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rieF0-00005M-SV; Fri, 08 Mar 2024 12:42:42 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rieEp-0008Vq-75 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2024 12:42:32 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rieEo-0000pX-Rr for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2024 12:42:30 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rieFK-0006zG-VM for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2024 12:43:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Andrea Corallo Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:43:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 69646 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 69646-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B69646.170991973826746 (code B ref 69646); Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:43:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 69646) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Mar 2024 17:42:18 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59475 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rieEb-0006xJ-1r for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2024 12:42:18 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:36082) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rieEP-0006wb-OO for 69646@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2024 12:42:15 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rieDo-0000ko-0r; Fri, 08 Mar 2024 12:41:28 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:To: From; bh=u8QpvSg24mPNkdomCsuJR3AImzPzIfCY4VRs0Cf+BZo=; b=oXeCyiDLUAkjZ6XvZ6Ic ca6klDhVki4Dq9YoVG/ePODpS/48pxEblPELbSE3CpPJJOkUf1oiUb8HOnabIvs3wQplhU6/kIFmR IG8qnm+FNeOZEdSH5bh/cseIdI4H2yCQ0NRAyvmym+1acNhftHdSHMejjtU7pqyceIjWALNQkzVkK KITWaW744pU8s1a5mTevZwTqUSSgSlBSMKzjH8mihdCHXWxNJ1kWd/7eZzB5jXPhARR10VuvnD1l4 oD8yfKXElbS01brVxk1d2a0p/lURDAfdKW5qqkhjp14yD0HvrkQ+ES/sdCF+heU5+RuaP4ENxRZl1 bIRjvC0cvymclw==; Original-Received: from acorallo by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rieDn-0006wV-Oo; Fri, 08 Mar 2024 12:41:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: <871q8kel1w.fsf@posteo.net> (Philip Kaludercic's message of "Fri, 08 Mar 2024 16:38:03 +0000") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:281256 Archived-At: Philip Kaludercic writes: > Andrea Corallo writes: > >> Philip Kaludercic writes: >> >>> Tags: patch >>> >>> >>> Here's a suggestion, to have the submit-emacs-patch command >>> automatically ping maintainers, in case they are not following the bug >>> tracker. Basically it goes through all the files and extracts the >>> information from the Maintainer: header. >>> >>> One non-technical issue here is that the maintainer information might >>> not be up to date. I've run a quick scan to see who is mentioned how >>> frequently. It might be necessary to clean up this list or to check who >>> is still around: >> >> Hi Philip, >> >> IIUC with this patch I'd be in Cc of all bugs? If that's the case I'm >> not personally in favor of this, I score mails on bug-gnu-emacs also >> based on me being in Cc or not. > > Why should that be? I have tested the new command out with bug#69647, > and you weren't added automatically. In fact, a quick grep tells me you > aren't listed as the maintainer in any file, so you wouldn't be affected > by this. Maybe your patch should parse also admin/MAINTAINERS and collect names from there as well? >> I think the bug is that maintainers should be subscribed to >> bug-gnu-emacs (otherwise I'm not sure how they can actually maintain). > > The issue is that for someone like me, who maintains a few little things > around Emacs, following all bugs and all discussions would be too much. > >> Isn't a long list of people in Cc technically just another mailing list? > > It shouldn't be a long list, just the people responsible for the > specific files being modified. My idea is to have something comparable > to Linux's "get_maintainer.pl"[0], and a bit more streamlined (assuming > people even use M-x submit-emacs-patch). If we want to Cc maintainers who are impacted by a patch I'm in favor, if we want to Cc all maintainers then I'm not. I haven't read your patch but from the initial description I thought was the first case, I've now the impression is the second. Apologies if there was some miss-understanding on my side. Thanks Andrea