[RFC] is it time to split up the MAINTAINERS file?

[RFC] is it time to split up the MAINTAINERS file?

[Rob Landley]

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

Re: [RFC] is it time to split up the MAINTAINERS file?

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 23:49 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> Quite possibly the answer is "no", but the MAINTAINERS file is  
> approaching 10,000 lines. Getting a bit unwieldy.

I think it hasn't been much of a bottleneck problem.

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

shrug.

MAINTAINERS is still the most frequently updated file.
This division eliminates those changes.

> 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.)

MAINTAINERS updates aren't centralized.
There are lots of MAINTAINERS updates from sub-maintainers.

> 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...

Patches talk...

Sprinkling a few hundred MAINTAINER styles files
around the tree would be the biggest negative.

But paths and files could be relative and absolute

F:	./			(everything at this directory and lower)
F:	./foo.c			(single file)
F:	Documentation/foo.txt	(absolute single file)

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)

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.

Still, I think the "best" approach would be to enhance
git to manage this additional information instead.

Something akin to:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/14/256

Maybe some standardization of "git notes" or
"git annotate" might work.

A script could be written to create something like the
existing MAINTAINERS file from that too.

Re: [RFC] is it time to split up the MAINTAINERS file?

[Rob Landley]

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

Re: [RFC] is it time to split up the MAINTAINERS file?

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 12:10 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> 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?

I replied with suggestions, but I'm not about to
bother with implementations.

Throwing it out there without doing the work to
implement it doesn't generally inspire others to do
very much about it.

It's your itch, scratch away.

> > 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.)

Not really as get_maintainers or another tool would
have to snarf all these files together before searching
once or every time it was run.

> > 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?)

To make it easier for those that don't use git to find
maintainers and lists to send bug reports and patches.

> > 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.

<smile>  What makes it horrific?
I think it'd be useful for more than lkml.