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
next 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.