[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1a297b360708131915g2f4fe32ex932631244891643c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 06:15:02 +0400
From: "Manu Abraham" <abraham.manu@...il.com>
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 8/13/07, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
ACK. Very much agree. In fact MAINTAINERS is a wrong thing altogether.
For example, code/drivers under a subsystem, might not be easily add
"able" to a central file in some cases as it is scattered around.
Maintainer info in the source is the right way to go.
-
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