1:12 a.m.
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:57 AM Joe Perches <joe(a)perches.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2018-11-16 at 14:44 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> I quickly cooked up this script to produce the top-5 commit prefixes for
> the given files over the arbitrary last 200 commits. It'll give you a
> pretty good idea if you're even close.
>
> ---
> #!/bin/sh
> # usage: subject-prefix FILE [...]
> # show top 5 subject prefixes for FILEs
>
> git log --format=%s -n 200 -- "$@" |\
> grep -v "^Merge " |\
--no-merges in git log can replace this line.
> sed 's/\(.*\):.*/\1/' |\
> sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | sed 's/ *[0-9]\+ //' |\
> head -n 5
> ---
>
> Someone who knows perl could turn that into a checkpatch check: See if
> the patch subject prefix is one of the top-5 for all files changed by
> the patch, and ask the user to double check if it isn't. Or some
> heuristics thereof.
This won't work when a patch contains multiple files
from different paths, or even multiple files from a
single driver.
Different paths is often, but not always a sign that patches may need
to be split up. Maybe that is something checkpatch should point out.
Perhaps it's better to use a generic mechanism like
basename $(dirname $filename):
with some exceptions and add an override patch subject
grammar to appropriate various sections of MAINTAINERS.
Perhaps just use the script as a starting point to populate
MAINTAINERS as it may never be that accurate.
I also think it's better to use a separate script like
scripts/spdxcheck.py and tie any necessary checkpatch
use to that script.
Yes, checkpatch is getting pretty unwieldy.
Rob