[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: tracking MAINTAINERS versus tracking SUBSYSTEMS
    On Sun, 2007-08-19 at 08:22 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
    > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Joe Perches wrote:
    > > On Sat, 2007-08-18 at 13:35 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
    > > > $ show_subsystem drivers/bluetooth/bpa10x.c
    > > > BLUETOOTH
    > > "what's a subsystem"? I'm not sure there is an appropriate
    > > definition. If there is an appropriate definition, why should anyone
    > > care what subsystem a particular file is in?
    > i'm confused -- i thought that was sort of the whole purpose of this
    > exercise, to match parts of the kernel source tree against the
    > maintainer for those parts, and to do that via the defined
    > "subsystem" which is currently used in MAINTAINERS.

    What I did was for patch submission.

    That script should probably be named "get_patch_cc_list".
    It does now by default use git to find and include the
    most frequent signatories.

    I think that descriptions of subsystems are not
    particularly useful. The file hierarchy should
    effectively do that. I think a tool to inform a
    "list of interested parties" when a file is touched
    is useful though.

    If there is to be a subsystem definition, I think it
    needs to be hierarchical with things like specific
    net drivers not a subsystem, but an element of the
    subsystem net:drivers (or drivers:net or both).

    If these elements are bundled together into a single
    "subsystem" descriptor file you will run into the "hot"
    file problem that Linus described.

    cheers, Joe

    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: 2007-08-19 17:41    [W:0.020 / U:4.780 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site