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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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/
