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 16:37:25 -0400
From:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	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

On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 10:42 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 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.

If the problem is to do with people failing to update the MAINTAINERS
file, why would moving the same data into 20 or 30 source files motivate
them to keep it up to date? As far as I can see, that would just serve
to multiply the amount of stale data...

Trond

-
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/