On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 16:37 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 10:42 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > 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.
>
> If the problem is to do with people failing to update the MAINTAINERS
> file, why would moving the same data into 20 or 30 source files motivate
> them to keep it up to date? As far as I can see, that would just serve
> to multiply the amount of stale data...
if each .c file has a MODULE_MAINTAINER() tag...
people tend to update .c files a lot better than way off-the-side other
files.
--
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
