Re: [RFC PATCH] get_maintainer: decouple subsystem status from maintainer role

[Kees Cook]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 12:29:22PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> The script currently uses the subystem's status (S: field) to change how
> maintainers are reported. One prominent example is when the status is
> Supported, the maintainers are reported as "(supporter:SUBSYSTEM)".
> 
> This is misleading, as the Supported status defined as "Someone is
> actually paid to look after this." may not in fact apply to everyone
> listed as a maintainer, but only to some of them.
> 
> It has also been confusing people to what "supporter" means and has
> required updates to the documentation [1].
> 
> Thus stop applying the subsystem status to change "maintainer:" to
> anything else, as maintainers are maintainers. Instead, if the subsystem
> status is not the most common one (Maintained), indicate it as part of
> the subsystem name. So for example, instead of "(supporter:SUBSYSTEM)"
> report "(maintainer:SUBSYSTEM [supported])".
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221006162413.858527-1-bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Bryan O'Donoghue" <bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <kees@xxxxxxxxxx>

> ---
> I have been confused myself in the past seeing "supporter" and have seen
> somebody recently wondering what it means as well.
> 
> I have read the threads from 2022 that in the end resulted in adjusting
> documentation only [1]. I very much agree with Ted's points about taking
> the subsystem status and applying it to all maintainers being wrong [2].
> 
> The attempt to modify get_maintainer output was retracted after Joe
> objected that the status becomes not reported at all [3]. This RFC
> attempts to address that by reporting the status (unless it's the most
> common one) as part of the subsystem.
> 
> The patch is not perfect, as with this approach, the logical thing would
> be to do the same also for reviewers and mailing lists. In fact,
> subsystems with a status of Orphan typically only have some catch-all
> mailing list and no maintainers, so the "(orphan minder:SUBSYSTEM)"
> would never be currently reported by checkpatch. It would be thus
> logical to report the status in the same way for lists (and reviewers).
> 
> But I didn't attempt a full implementation as I'm not fluent in Perl and
> would like to see if we can get a consensus first. If we do, I don't
> insist in this particular "SUBSYSTEM [status]" syntax nor on
> implementing the full solution myself - I would be happy if somebody
> else did. My main point is that maintainer is a maintainer and the
> subsystem status should be indicated for the subsystem, not for the
> maintainer.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221006162413.858527-1-bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Yzen4X1Na0MKXHs9@xxxxxxx/
> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/30776fe75061951777da8fa6618ae89bea7a8ce4.camel@xxxxxxxxxxx/

Do we want to change "Supported" to "Funded" to help clear up the
meaning? (But yes, I agree, that the subsystem status should be applied
to the subsystem, not the individual contacts.)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook