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 12:56:50 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        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 Mon, 2016-12-12 at 11:00 -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> 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.

As long as I don't have to update the get_maintainers script
just to satisfy some external desire to make it rst style
compatible, I don't much care.

About the change itself:

Does the boxing with the ======= blocks align properly?
It it really useful?  Is there another/better way?