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 21:48:53 -0400
From:	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.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 Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 06:19:26PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 16:37 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:

> > 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.

I think this approach makes a lot more sense than adding a bunch of
data to MAINTAINERS all for a tool that I'll wager few people would
ever use.

John
-- 
John W. Linville
linville@...driver.com
-
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/