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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <878u73npjg.fsf@intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 16 Oct 2015 12:14:27 +0300
From:	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: add support for using an alternate MAINTAINERS file

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> 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?

Probably not.

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

It may be useful for several organizations contributing to the kernel.

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

IIUC you can't specify file patterns for specific reviewers within one
entry. I think we'd have to split up the driver entry to several, mostly
duplicated and possibly overlapping entries, with their own designated
reviewers and file patterns. I think that would be noisy and confusing.

Perhaps we could have detailed maintainers files within drivers,
included from the top MAINTAINERS file; however that would be a much
more intrusive change (and definitely beyond my perl cargo culting
skills). I just thought what I proposed here would be a rather harmless
change.


BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/