Re: [PATCH] [545/2many] MAINTAINERS - XEN HYPERVISOR INTERFACE

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 12:19:38PM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Randy Dunlap (randy.dunlap@oracle.com) wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:55:36 -0700 Chris Wright wrote:
> > > * joe@perches.com (joe@perches.com) wrote:
> > > > +F:	arch/i386/xen/
> > > > +F:	drivers/*/xen-*front.c
> > > > +F:	drivers/xen/
> > > > +F:	include/asm-i386/xen/
> > > > +F:	include/xen/
> > > 
> > > I think this data will easily become stale.  What is the point again?
> > 
> > Agreed.  But not everyone wants to or should have to use git,
> > so what are the alternatives?
> 
> Between git (or gitweb), existing MAINTAINERS and a bit of common
> sense (or extra sleuthing), I never perceived a significant problem.

For active kernel developers like you and me it's not a problem.

But for other people it's non-trivial to always figure out who the 
maintainer of some part of the kernel is.

> Alternative could be to place info directly in source files.  If not
> all of MAINTAINERS info, it could be a tag to reference the relevant
> MAINTAINERS entry.

Having the information in MAINTAINERS is what creates the least 
redundancies.

> thanks,
> -chris

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed