linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch

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, 13 Aug 2007 10:42:35 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Mariusz Kozlowski <m.kozlowski@...land.pl>
Cc:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch -
	scripts/get_maintainer.pl

On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 19:33 +0200, Mariusz Kozlowski wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> 	I don't recall discusion about this so here are my 3 cents:
> 
> 	I like the idea. 

I don't actually. It shows a central MAINTAINERS file is the wrong
approach; just that 500+ patches to the same file were needed shows
that. 

The maintainer info should be in the source file itself! That's the only
reasonable way to keep it updated; now I'm all for having it machine
parsable so that tools can use it, but it still really should be in the
code itself, not in some central file that will always just go out of
data, and will be a huge source of needless patch conflicts.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/