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:   Wed, 4 Mar 2020 22:02:35 +0100 (CET)
From:   Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
To:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: adjust to filesystem doc ReST conversion



On Wed, 4 Mar 2020, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:

> Em Wed, 4 Mar 2020 13:10:35 -0700
> Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> escreveu:
> 
> > 
> > Sigh, I need to work a MAINTAINERS check into my workflow...
> > 
> > Thanks for fixing these, but ... what tree did you generate the patch
> > against?  I doesn't come close to applying to docs-next.
> 
> I'm starting to suspect that maybe the best workflow would be to just 
> apply the patches at docs-next keeping links broken, and then run
> ./scripts/documentation-file-ref-check --fix by the end of a merge
> window, addressing such breakages.
> 
> There are usually lots of churn outside the merge window.
>

Agree, it is probably the simplest solution to get such things fixed at 
the end of the merge window; there are many of such 'automatic' fixes (and 
scripts that generate them). It just needs somebody to convince Linus to
have a trusted end-of-merge-window clean-up team to provide a final pull 
request on Sunday afternoon to fix all those minor points.
 
> Another alternative would be to split the MAINTAINERS file on a
> per-subsystem basis. If I remember well, someone proposed this once at
> LKML. I vaguely remember that there were even a patch (or RFC)
> adding support for such thing for get_maintainers.pl.
> 

I would also support that idea. In the meantime, I am looking into the 
effort to identify and fix these issues when they are submitted to the 
mailing list. It is not the simplest solution, but at least a solution 
that I can try to work on individually at first.

Lukas

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ