|| ||Adrian Bunk <bunk-AT-kernel.org>|
|| ||Arjan van de Ven <arjan-AT-infradead.org>|
|| ||Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch -
|| ||Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:22:05 +0200|
|| ||Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust-AT-fys.uio.no>,
Mariusz Kozlowski <m.kozlowski-AT-tuxland.pl>,
Joe Perches <joe-AT-perches.com>, akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org,
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
The move of netdev to vger would have required updating
approx. 1300 C files...
"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 post comments)