[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:0.155 / U:8.912 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site