On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 12:37:14 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote:

The very first case I actually looked at wasn't even some
"inexperienced developer" - the kind you claim is the problem, and the
kind you claim this would help.

It was a random fix from Florian Westphal, who has been around for
more than a decade, is credited with over 1500 commits (and mentioned
in many many more), and knows what he's doing.

He has a patch that references a "Fixes:" line, and clearly didn't go
through the get_maintainer script as such, and the
netdev/cc_maintainers script complains as a result.

Florian is sending us patches from his tree which have already been
reviewed on the netfilter mailing list. It's basically a PR.
There's a handful of people who do that and I don't care enough to
silence it because ignoring the false positives is a noop.

When some noob sends a patch which actually *should* have been CCed
to more people I need to either go and CC that person in myself.
Or tell the noob to repost.

IOW solving the _actually_ missing CCs is higher priority for me.

So Jakub, I think you are barking *entirely* up the wrong tree.

The reason you blame this on mis-use by inexperienced maintainers is
that you probably never even react to the experienced ones that do the
very same things, because you trust them and never bother to tell them
"you didn't use get_maintainers to get the precise list of people that
patchwork complains about".

So the problem is not in get_maintainers. It's in having expectations
that are simply not realistic.

You seem to think that those inexperienced developers should do something that

 (a) experienced developers don't do *EITHER*

 (b) the scripts complain about instead of just doing

and then you think that changing get_maintainers would somehow hide the issue.

You definitely shouldn't require inexperienced developers to do
something that clearly experienced people then don't do.

Now, maybe I happened to just randomly pick a patchwork entry that was
very unusual. But I doubt it.