On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 19:33 +0200, Mariusz Kozlowski wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I don't recall discusion about this so here are my 3 cents: > > > > I like the idea. > > I don't actually. It shows a central MAINTAINERS file is the wrong > approach; just that 500+ patches to the same file were needed shows > that. > > 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. I second this thought (keeping MAINTAINERS info closer to code than in a central kernel-global location), but have a differing opinion about the implementation. Having MAINTAINERS-style annotations in all source files sounds needlessly redundant. Worse still, I expect people will avoid adding these annotations to all source files precisely for this reason, thus someone editing drivers/xxx/foo.c would have no idea that the maintainer info for this file is actually in drivers/xxx/bar.c. Better solution is to have multiple MAINTAINERS files distributed in the kernel tree, IMHO -- say a drivers/net/MAINTAINERS for maintainer info on all various net drivers, drivers/kvm/MAINTAINERS for KVM maintainer info, fs/ext3/MAINTAINERS for ext3 maintainers, fs/MAINTAINERS for generic VFS maintainers info, so on and so forth. Of course, these individual MAINTAINERS files could still have the newly-introduced "F:" fields as well (drivers/net/MAINTAINERS would clearly require it, f.e.) ... Satyam - 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/
