bug#69646: [PATCH] Have insert 'submit-emacs-patch' maintainers into X-Debbugs-Cc

[Andrea Corallo]

Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:

> Andrea Corallo <acorallo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> 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