From: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 01:35:27 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl
Message-ID: <46C2585F.60802@student.ltu.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0708141131140.30176@woody.linux-foundation.org>

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Joe Perches wrote:
>
>   
>> On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 20:03 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
>>     
>>> "git info --maintainer drivers/ide/ide-cd.c" or some such would say "Alan 
>>> Cox <alan@...>".
>>>       
>> Perhaps maintainer(s), approver(s), listener(s)?
>>
>> I think something like this should be a git-goal.
>> What do the git-wranglers think?
>>     
>
> The thing is, if you have git, you can basically already do this.
>
> Do a script like this:
>
> 	#!/bin/sh
> 	git log --since=6.months.ago -- "$@" |
> 		grep -i '^    [-a-z]*by:.*@' |
>   
sed -r "s/^.*by: \"?([^\"]+)\"?/\1/" |
> 		sort | uniq -c |
> 		sort -r -n | head
>
> and it gives you a rather good picture of who is involved with a 
> particular subdirectory or file.
>
>   
Like the script! Especially since it reveled --since=6.month.ago and 
uniq to me.
Just wondering, why order them in the acked, signed and tested? Other 
then removing those, the added 'sed' also fix the <name> vs 
"<name>"-"problem". + adding '-i' to uniq should help the result too, right?

Now a simple "diffstat -p1 -l <patch> | xargs <preferred script-name>" 
makes the day. Too bad, as Joe pointed out, it does not include relevant ML.

cheers
Richard Knutsson