[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46C0B6AB.5010908@student.ltu.se>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:53:15 +0200
From: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
CC: Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Mariusz Kozlowski <m.kozlowski@...land.pl>,
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
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Aug 14 2007 00:02, Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
>> Better solution is to have multiple MAINTAINERS files distributed in the
>> kernel tree, IMHO -- say a drivers/net/MAINTAINERS for maintainer info on
>> all various net drivers, drivers/kvm/MAINTAINERS for KVM maintainer info,
>> fs/ext3/MAINTAINERS for ext3 maintainers, fs/MAINTAINERS for generic VFS
>> maintainers info, so on and so forth. Of course, these individual
>> MAINTAINERS files could still have the newly-introduced "F:" fields as
>> well (drivers/net/MAINTAINERS would clearly require it, f.e.) ...
>>
>
> Yes please.
>
> Or perhaps even putting the maintainer into the Kconfig files?
>
>
Hope I am not biting my ass now, but I believed this was suggested but
the counter-argument were; is really a file/system made to configure the
kernel related to the maintainer?
I like the idea of ".maintainers" (or maybe even ".maintainer" now). It
has also been suggested that the file should be at the lowest common
pathway to avoid duplication. Downside is the added need to search for
the file...
Richard Knutsson
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists