Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl

[Rene Herman <rene.herman@gmail.com>]

On 08/14/2007 03:51 AM, Rene Herman wrote:

> MODULE_MAINTAINER() was discussed a while ago but embedding information 
> into the binary has the problem you can't ever change deployed systems, 
> meaning it lags by design. If a maintainer changes, people would still 
> be using the information from their old binaries, meaning a replaced 
> maintainer might get contacted for potentially years still (and the new 
> one not).
>
> (you could avoid that by placing not a name/address in the maintainer 
> tag but a pointer to somewhere else but at that point this gets to be 
> about solving something else).
>
> Keeping it in the source alone is fine. C files could just embed their 
> MAINTAINERS entry as a header:
>
> /*
>  * P: Maintainer
>  * M: Mail patches to
>  * L: Mailing list that is relevant to this area
>  * W: Web-page with status/info
>  * T: SCM tree type and location.  Type is one of: git, hg, quilt.
>  * S: Status, one of the following:
>  */
>
> And probably adding fields:
>
>  * I: Info/Summary (for index files and the like)
>  * A: Author
>  * G: License
>
> and such. Yes, while we're at it, we can pick better letters or full 
> word tags ;-)

Okay, and if a single "maintenance unit" consists of many files, this gets 
to be too much yes. But they _could_ just grow a header pointing back to the 
MINTAINERS file/database;

/*
 * MAINTAINERS: 3C359 NETWORK DRIVER
 */

Thst should keep things minimal enough to keep them updated, no?

Rene.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/