All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFHelp:  Splitting MAINTAINERS into maintainers/* and	Makefile/Kconfig support
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:30:41 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1187353841.822.60.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <46C53F3F.5060108@redhat.com>

On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 02:25 -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
> The whole point of MAINTAINERS is to have one central repository for this 
> information, instead of scattering it throughout the various source files.  If 
> that file is getting too unwieldy (and I don't think it is) then I could 
> understand splitting it up hierarchically, for example having a 
> drivers/net/MAINTAINERS that listed the info for all the net drivers.

The individual MAINTAINERS files eliminates what Linus
described as their "hotness".
No shared updates by multiple parties.

> What you're suggesting is a less efficient equivalent to putting the info 
> directly into the source files.

I believe that wrong.

Maintainer patterns frequently look like:

F:	arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/
F:	drivers/cpufreq/
F:	include/linux/cpufreq.h

If in source, this would currently require 21 + 12 + 1 
modifications instead of 1.

> If that approach was enough to make people 
> happy, we wouldn't have MAINTAINERS to begin with.

I think the insertion of maintainers into source
itself is wrong.  It's freeform, error prone and
requires significant modifications to source files
as maintainers come and go.
 
> Perhaps with a little automation it could be revived,

Which is the help I'm looking for.

Can someone please help here on ideas or implementation
adding a makefile target for MAINTAINERS from files
in a specific subdirectory?

> though I think that adding a path pattern 
> removes the need, while keeping it easier to parse by scripts.
> I appreciate the effort to make MAINTAINERS more useful,
> but please don't add  another 600 files to the tree.

In the distributed form, you'll still end up with
~400 new files spread all over the tree.

Either way, you'll have hundreds of files.

$ grep "^F:" MAINTAINERS |  sed -e "s/[A-Za-z0-9\_\*\.\-]*$//" | sort |
uniq | wc -l
415

Centralized as maintainers/* or distributed as ../../../Maintainers

Pick one, I don't much care, but I'm still looking for
Makefile/KConfig help reassembling it into a single
MAINTAINERS block similar to the current form.

Help?

cheers, Joe


  reply	other threads:[~2007-08-17 12:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-08-16 20:51 RFHelp: Splitting MAINTAINERS into maintainers/* and Makefile/Kconfig support Joe Perches
2007-08-17  6:25 ` Chris Snook
2007-08-17 12:30   ` Joe Perches [this message]
2007-08-17 14:48     ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-08-17 15:13       ` Joe Perches

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1187353841.822.60.camel@localhost \
    --to=joe@perches.com \
    --cc=csnook@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.