On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 06:19:26PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> 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.
The move of netdev to vger would have required updating
approx. 1300 C files...
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
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]
