[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/
    On 8/13/07, Arjan van de Ven <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 19:33 +0200, Mariusz Kozlowski wrote:
    > > Hello,
    > >
    > > I don't recall discusion about this so here are my 3 cents:
    > >
    > > I like the idea.
    > I don't actually. It shows a central MAINTAINERS file is the wrong
    > approach; just that 500+ patches to the same file were needed shows
    > that.
    > The maintainer info should be in the source file itself! That's the only
    > reasonable way to keep it updated; now I'm all for having it machine
    > parsable so that tools can use it, but it still really should be in the
    > code itself, not in some central file that will always just go out of
    > data, and will be a huge source of needless patch conflicts.

    ACK. Very much agree. In fact MAINTAINERS is a wrong thing altogether.

    For example, code/drivers under a subsystem, might not be easily add
    "able" to a central file in some cases as it is scattered around.

    Maintainer info in the source is the right way to go.
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-08-14 04:23    [W:0.041 / U:48.560 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site