On 06/11/2013 02:13:45 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 23:49 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> You could either have the same entry in more than one MAINTAINERS
file
> or keep it at a higher level. (This wouldn't eliminate the top level
> MAINTAINERS, merely trim it down a bit.)
>
> Just throwing it out there. Seems like it might be a thing, someday
> anyway...
Patches talk...
So you suggest sending a patch series to break out arch directories and
go "here, a whole new task for you the architecture maintainer to take
on!" and that's the _polite_ way to ask whether or not it's a good idea?
or add an initial / for the absolutes
F: */ (everything at this directory and lower)
F: foo.c (single file)
F: /Documentation/foo.txt (absolute single file)
That one, obviously. (Optimize for the common case.)
make could be taught to create an overall integrated
MAINTAINERS, which would not be part of the files
managed by git/cvs from these submaintainer files.
Why? (What's the point? Does it make finding who is in charge of $THING
easier?)
Still, I think the "best" approach would be to enhance
git to manage this additional information instead.
Oh please no.
Something akin to:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/14/256
I'm sorry I brought it up.
Maybe some standardization of "git notes" or
"git annotate" might work.
The horror! The horror!
A script could be written to create something like the
existing MAINTAINERS file from that too.
I won't mention it again.
*shudder*
Rob--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
