On 8/13/07, Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> 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 [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]
