On Thu, 2017-07-27 at 19:43 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote: > > > > Maybe add a reordering of the patterns so that each pattern list > > is in a specific order too > > I don't think this is wrong per se, but I'm not sure I want to get > into the merge hell any more than we are already. > > Maybe when/if that file is actually split up?
Fine by me. The get_maintainer patch is a prereq to any split-up. There are a bunch of little niggly patches that should go in that remove/update bad F: patterns too one day. Given the differences between -next and your tree, I think only Andrew and quilt would do a decent job of getting individual patches merged. Unless you want to take them. I think it's better to centralize the MAINTAINERS location in <tree>/MAINTAINERS/<files> than spread them all over the tree given how many subsystems and maintainerships are also spread around the tree. But the get_maintainers patch I sent allows both styles.
