From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753405AbbJPJOr (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Oct 2015 05:14:47 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:23147 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752561AbbJPJOo (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Oct 2015 05:14:44 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,688,1437462000"; d="scan'208";a="828377218" From: Jani Nikula To: Joe Perches Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: add support for using an alternate MAINTAINERS file In-Reply-To: <1444985457.22921.12.camel@perches.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo References: <1444984605-7445-1-git-send-email-jani.nikula@intel.com> <1444985457.22921.12.camel@perches.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.20.2+57~gff3a03d (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 12:14:27 +0300 Message-ID: <878u73npjg.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 16 Oct 2015, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 11:36 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> There are large and/or complex subsystems/drivers that have domain >> experts that should review patches in their domain. One such example is >> drm/i915. We'd like to be able to document this in a way that can be >> automatically queried for each patch, so people know who to ping for >> reviews. This is what get_maintainer.pl already solves. >> >> However, documenting all of this in the main kernel MAINTAINERS file is >> just too much noise, and potentially confusing for community >> contributors. Add support for specifying and using an alternate >> MAINTAINERS file with --maintainers option. > > Is this really useful for the community at large? Probably not. > This seems like something that might be useful for an > organization but not others. It may be useful for several organizations contributing to the kernel. > Why is specifying whatever is necessary in the existing > MAINTAINERS file noisy or confusing? IIUC you can't specify file patterns for specific reviewers within one entry. I think we'd have to split up the driver entry to several, mostly duplicated and possibly overlapping entries, with their own designated reviewers and file patterns. I think that would be noisy and confusing. Perhaps we could have detailed maintainers files within drivers, included from the top MAINTAINERS file; however that would be a much more intrusive change (and definitely beyond my perl cargo culting skills). I just thought what I proposed here would be a rather harmless change. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center