On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:52:06 +0200 Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 08:41:43AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:54:26 +0200 Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 12:41:41PM +0200, Rene Herman wrote: > > > > On 04/26/2007 03:18 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:32:36 +0200 Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> wrote: > > > >>> Provide MODULE_MAINTAINER() as a convenient place to stick a name and > > > >>> email address both for drivers having multiple (current and > > > >>> non-current) authors and for when someone who wants to maintain a > > > >>> driver isn't so much an author. > > > > > > > > [ snip ] > > > > > > > >> I'm not sure we want to do this - that's what ./MAINTAINERS is for and > > > >> we > > > >> end up having to maintain the same info in two places. > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ less ./MAINTAINERS > > > > ./MAINTAINERS: No such file or directory > > > > > > > > MAINTAINERS is a developers thing, not users, yet a maintainer is > > > > someone > > > > who other than by developers wants to be contacted by users of a > > > > particular > > > > driver. Right now, a module exports a set of name and email addresses > > > > through the MODULE_AUTHOR tag but given multiple current and > > > > non-current > > > > authors, completely or largely orphaned drivers (I have a lot of junk > > > > PC > > > > hardware so I come across those relatively often) and people who might > > > > be > > > > interested in taking care of a driver but who do not consider > > > > themselves an > > > > author for (upto now) having done a s/, struct pt_regs// on it, that > > > > tag > > > > only confuses the issue of whom to contact. > > > > > > > > And it in fact even does so when Joe does know about a MAINTAINERS file > > > > and > > > > does happen to have a kernel source tree lying around somewhere. With > > > > one > > > > set of addresses displayed prominently inside the sourcecode of the > > > > very > > > > driver and another one of in a MAINTAINERS file, the first one wins. > > > > Joe > > > > would have to be very new to Linux to trust something in the tree > > > > that's > > > > not actually compiled over something that is. > > > > > > > > As the first response in this thread Cristoph Hellwig stated that > > > > MODULE_AUTHOR serves no purpose other than what MODULE_MAINTAINER would > > > > be > > > > serving. Others agreed and Adrian Bunk suggested deleting MODULE_AUTHOR > > > > outright. > > > > > > > > That would actually also serve my purposes; if there's no MODULE_AUTHOR > > > > confusing the issue, I don't so much need a MODULE_MAINTAINER to fix it > > > > again. I believe having "modinfo" (optionally!) display a contact > > > > address > > > > for a driver might be a user advantage, but with all the wrong > > > > addresses > > > > gone, I don't really care deeply; MODULE_AUTHOR doesn't serve the > > > > purpose > > > > today and with it gone the user at least knows he needs to look > > > > elsewhere. > > > > MODULE_AUTHOR is also a credits issue but the information can be > > > > transferred to copyright headers. It would obviously also fix any > > > > possible > > > > maintenance issues. > > > > > > > > Alan Cox believes that having author information embedded in the module > > > > serves a legal purpose though and objects to removal. > > > > Wouldn't a /* comment */ satisfy AUTHOR needs? > > > > It gives deserved attribution and should serve legal purpose just as > > well as a macro does (IANAL!). > > Alan's opinion in [1] sounds reasonable (and I trust that he knows what > he is talking about).
OK, I see. > > IMO we want MAINTAINER info in the macro and in modinfo, > > so I'm for removing MODULE_AUTHOR and just having MAINTAINER. > >... > > I don't think we want to expose maintainership information to users at > all: > - duplicates information in MAINTAINERS > - maintainers sometimes disappear > - the 3 year old kernel of your distribution would contain 3 year old > maintainership information > > IMHO the default should be that users report problems with distribution > kernels to their distribution and problems with ftp.kernel.org kernels > to either linux-kernel or the kernel Bugzilla. s/linux-kernel/the appropriate mailing list/ please :) so looks to me like we maintain the status quo. > > ~Randy > > cu > Adrian > > [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/4/260 --- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** - 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/
