All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC] is it time to split up the MAINTAINERS file?
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 23:49:13 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1370926153.2776.95@driftwood> (raw)

Quite possibly the answer is "no", but the MAINTAINERS file is  
approaching 10,000 lines. Getting a bit unwieldy.

Most of the entries look like:

ARM/SAMSUNG MOBILE MACHINE SUPPORT
M:      Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>
L:      linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org (moderated for  
non-subscribers)
S:      Maintained
F:      arch/arm/mach-s5pv210/mach-aquila.c
F:      arch/arm/mach-s5pv210/mach-goni.c
F:      arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-universal_c210.c
F:      arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-nuri.c

Which could be moved to an arch/arm/MAINTAINERS file, and the relevant  
paths trimmed.

The question is: would this be an improvement? (And worth the changes  
to checkpatch.pl and such required to make it work?)

One potential _advantage_ of this is we could make the reporting  
hierarchy more explicit. The first entry in arch/arm/MAINTAINERS would  
be the arm maintainer and everybody else _under_ there goes through  
him. (Also, that guy could handle updates to the local MAINTAINERS file  
itself, so we're not always spamming Andrew. Such updates could even  
post to the architecture-specific list rather than linux-kernel.)

Yeah, reality isn't neatly nested. Lots of things refer to include  
files and Documentation files, but there's generally a main area of  
focus (where's the actual _code_?), and when you do have something like:

ARM/SHMOBILE ARM ARCHITECTURE
M:      Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>
M:      Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>
L:      linux-sh@vger.kernel.org
W:      http://oss.renesas.com
Q:      http://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-sh/list/
T:      git  
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/horms/renesas.git next
S:      Supported
F:      arch/arm/mach-shmobile/
F:      drivers/sh/

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...

Rob

             reply	other threads:[~2013-06-11  4:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-06-11  4:49 Rob Landley [this message]
2013-06-11  7:13 ` [RFC] is it time to split up the MAINTAINERS file? Joe Perches
2013-06-11 17:10   ` Rob Landley
2013-06-11 17:33     ` 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=1370926153.2776.95@driftwood \
    --to=rob@landley.net \
    --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.