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

["John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 04:22:05PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 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...

Wouldn't it be individuals listed in MODULE_MAINTAINER?

Even if it is the mailing list, is this the kind of thing that sed
is perfect to handle?

John
-- 
John W. Linville
linville@tuxdriver.com
-
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/