David Brownell wrote: > Is there general agreement that these "F:" entries should be used? > Rather than, say, embedding references in the relevant parts of > the source tree, adjacent to those files, where they would be more > visible to people making relevant changes. > > I'm also concerned with the reality that the MAINTAINERS file is > not accurate. The $SUBJECT patch is one example; the named maintainer > is no longer active (in that area, at least) and the named driver is > not actually separable from the rest of usbcore. Better IMO to just > remove the "hub driver" entry.
I don't speak for Joe, but: If there is a good mapping from MAINTAINERS to paths then more submitters will use MAINTAINERS more frequently. A side effect would be that outdated entries in MAINTAINERS would become apparent more quickly, and updated more quickly. Of course that's just speculation --- but your comment on this "hub driver" entry, prompted by Joe's patch, seems to support that speculation. -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== =--- -==-= http://arcgraph.de/sr/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
