linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add maintainers to the admin guide

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:00:45 -0700
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>
Cc:     Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@...marit.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add maintainers to the admin guide

On Fri,  2 Dec 2016 10:15:13 -0200
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com> wrote:

> On the past approaches, was planning to keep the documentation
> about what's at the MAINTAINERS file inside it, but that would
> require running an external script or use some Sphinx extension.
> 
> This time, I took a much simpler approach: convert the initial
> part of the MAINTAINERS file to ReST and move to a file at the
> admin-guide. So, MAINTAINERS file will now contain only the
> maintainer's database, and a single line pointing to its documentation.

So sorry for the silence on this...I decided that I wanted to think about
it past the merge window, then promptly got buried by other stuff.

I like this approach better than one came before, but I do still have to
wonder about what the objective is.  The documentation of the MAINTAINERS
format is going to be of interest to people while the are ... looking at
or modifying MAINTAINERS.  So perhaps it's already in the most useful
place?  Are we really doing people a favor by telling them they have to
follow a pointer to a different file?  What is gained by doing that?

I won't dig in my heels against this forever, but I am curious to hear
what others think about why this change should (or should not) be made.

Thanks,

jon