linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: add support for using an alternate MAINTAINERS file

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1444985457.22921.12.camel@perches.com>
Date:	Fri, 16 Oct 2015 01:50:57 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: add support for using an alternate
 MAINTAINERS file

On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 11:36 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> There are large and/or complex subsystems/drivers that have domain
> experts that should review patches in their domain. One such example is
> drm/i915. We'd like to be able to document this in a way that can be
> automatically queried for each patch, so people know who to ping for
> reviews. This is what get_maintainer.pl already solves.
> 
> However, documenting all of this in the main kernel MAINTAINERS file is
> just too much noise, and potentially confusing for community
> contributors. Add support for specifying and using an alternate
> MAINTAINERS file with --maintainers option.

Is this really useful for the community at large?

This seems like something that might be useful for an
organization but not others.

Why is specifying whatever is necessary in the existing
MAINTAINERS file noisy or confusing?



--
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/