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]

Message-ID: <46C10AA8.3090505@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:51:36 +0200
From:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
CC:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
	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 08/14/2007 03:19 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 16:37 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>> 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...
> 
> if each .c file has a MODULE_MAINTAINER() tag... 
> 
> people tend to update .c files a lot better than way off-the-side other
> files.

MODULE_MAINTAINER() was discussed a while ago but embedding information into 
the binary has the problem you can't ever change deployed systems, meaning 
it lags by design. If a maintainer changes, people would still be using the 
information from their old binaries, meaning a replaced maintainer might get 
contacted for potentially years still (and the new one not).

(you could avoid that by placing not a name/address in the maintainer tag 
but a pointer to somewhere else but at that point this gets to be about 
solving something else).

Keeping it in the source alone is fine. C files could just embed their 
MAINTAINERS entry as a header:

/*
  * P: Maintainer
  * M: Mail patches to
  * L: Mailing list that is relevant to this area
  * W: Web-page with status/info
  * T: SCM tree type and location.  Type is one of: git, hg, quilt.
  * S: Status, one of the following:
  */

And probably adding fields:

  * I: Info/Summary (for index files and the like)
  * A: Author
  * G: License

and such. Yes, while we're at it, we can pick better letters or full word 
tags ;-)

Rene.

-
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/