linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: standardize git.kernel.org URLs

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87ikkapplw.fsf@trenco.lwn.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2025 09:41:15 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Xose Vazquez Perez <xose.vazquez@...il.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, DOC ML
 <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, KERNEL ML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: standardize git.kernel.org URLs

Xose Vazquez Perez <xose.vazquez@...il.com> writes:

> On 6/25/25 7:27 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>
>> Xose Vazquez Perez <xose.vazquez@...il.com> writes:
>> 
>>> replace https: with git:, delete trailing /, and identify repos as "git"
>>>
>>> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> (maintainer:DOCUMENTATION)
>>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
>>> Cc: DOC ML <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org> (open list:DOCUMENTATION)
>>> Cc: KERNEL ML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> (open list)
>>> Signed-off-by: Xose Vazquez Perez <xose.vazquez@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>>   MAINTAINERS | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
>>>   1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
>> So ... we're changing GitHub URLs from git: to https:, and Gitlab URLs
>> from https: to git:?
>> 
>> Certainly we want to fix URLs that are broken, but is there any real
>> reason to churn up the MAINTAINERS file to "fix" URLs that work?
>
> The reason was to be *consistent* with the rest of the entries.
> Because most of them(380) are using git:, vs 22 for https:

Why are we concerned about consistency here?

As you will have observed with your other patch, wholesale changes to a
file like MAINTAINERS lead to merge conflicts.  We can handle those - if
there is a good reason.  I'm not convinced that "consistency" counts as
such.  Let's just let the maintainers present their trees as they wish.

Thanks,

jon