[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46C1F3A7.3090007@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:25:43 +0200
From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [443/2many] MAINTAINERS - HIBERNATION (aka Software Suspend,
aka swsusp):
On 08/14/2007 08:15 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Quite frankly, I think the MAINTAINERS file gets a whole lot uglier this
> way.
>
> There's also a rather fundamental issue: this will likely make people
> touch the MAINTAINERS file *more*, and from a maintenance standpoint, that
> is exactly the wrong thing to have (one central file that everybody
> touches). It just tends to generate unnecessary merge conflicts etc.
>
> (We used to have that issue with the central configuration file, for
> example).
>
> So the more I look at these things, the more convinced I am that this is
> not the right thing to do. These things should *not* be in one huge file,
> and I'd much much rather have the maintainership information be carried
> along with the subsystem itself, or the files it contains.
>
> In other words, it would be much better to just have per-file markers,
> along with some per-subdirectory stuff or similar.
Joe just now convinced me that rather than the per-file markers, the marker
is meta-information that could just be stored in GIT, with the MAINTAINERS
file turning into something generated.
git info --maintainer and such (for many possible kinds of --flags) would
throw out the information.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists