From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD0BB3196BF; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 15:41:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751470878; cv=none; b=X+LXHJG617/MpKJK9bcE2xmmmplVOwg0rwBXJrMkNXHrg/y88OkQlsify88VutOK7kFF2N8dKUg4HaqhJf4e0XdrHRf5E4WAW6Duu98xZAHn/72smvEvGizHWg7sd1PuOY0AdxdsqhCKh3HmCOU1t35cn3vH3XSerxqxBoZvs6M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751470878; c=relaxed/simple; bh=08XZkzH/rp3F/lACfJBlpUicfjBs9yAbgK7BUXoRwbc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=OM9wkR6uXJPhvqAJxe/wKAK45FXH+zenPRw0WBqYFeUtzO8s2pqDsadBcYs+jPc+YUk9NekXE/cqcGFW9kdimlT4Om1OLnLtand8wQccyyrYbA+jtCUzDx+LEDcnzCieYGZdj+l+NAxd7GIDVpKkjcSDD6tfKpdv4xUwnnKTRUg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=GvxBmAeH; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="GvxBmAeH" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net C4A99406FA DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1751470876; bh=Ks7fMMTsFmVFfdfh7mElmQhkZIoo5Ph9lRKADq3EZ2k=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=GvxBmAeHdiuj+iIyAFIZIDyknnrBbh8bF0HanFL8xXthfH6d/zTHHPkcR6tiqk3OX rlfm5KoHMNe/mm0yJANtdpJ13+bMVTfEp2NHyTaeJRVeL1t1iHgpqnB1pB+T4T3IaG gE13NgrmoFkylf9FFnGFhWB7cF5T+YjQO9pyAZxzE0bnnCVK7rImNIP/0eCPYBYScx CyxrN+scMb227WLW3wcpcvru747/QXf506IToF9JX019bVdT2mbDsNESd7jTb38/wm K/cjYGorNPNRd8S4uisoe1ToLCMZKklLUmcXeDY4rGtRbC9KQUigHwWyFjcNLgNcFH Q2xOql4NCDFDg== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:2da9::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C4A99406FA; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 15:41:15 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Xose Vazquez Perez Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , DOC ML , KERNEL ML Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: standardize git.kernel.org URLs In-Reply-To: <02ffd0a2-3036-475c-9e23-55d706eec7ea@gmail.com> References: <20250625142017.237949-1-xose.vazquez@gmail.com> <87a55vag0l.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> <02ffd0a2-3036-475c-9e23-55d706eec7ea@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2025 09:41:15 -0600 Message-ID: <87ikkapplw.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Xose Vazquez Perez writes: > On 6/25/25 7:27 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > >> Xose Vazquez Perez writes: >> >>> replace https: with git:, delete trailing /, and identify repos as "git" >>> >>> Cc: Jonathan Corbet (maintainer:DOCUMENTATION) >>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman >>> Cc: DOC ML (open list:DOCUMENTATION) >>> Cc: KERNEL ML (open list) >>> Signed-off-by: Xose Vazquez Perez >>> --- >>> MAINTAINERS | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- >>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) > >> So ... we're changing GitHub URLs from git: to https:, and Gitlab URLs >> from https: to git:? >> >> Certainly we want to fix URLs that are broken, but is there any real >> reason to churn up the MAINTAINERS file to "fix" URLs that work? > > The reason was to be *consistent* with the rest of the entries. > Because most of them(380) are using git:, vs 22 for https: Why are we concerned about consistency here? As you will have observed with your other patch, wholesale changes to a file like MAINTAINERS lead to merge conflicts. We can handle those - if there is a good reason. I'm not convinced that "consistency" counts as such. Let's just let the maintainers present their trees as they wish. Thanks, jon