On Mon, 2016-12-12 at 11:00 -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 10:15:13 -0200 > Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mche...@s-opensource.com> wrote: > > > On the past approaches, was planning to keep the documentation > > about what's at the MAINTAINERS file inside it, but that would > > require running an external script or use some Sphinx extension. > > > > This time, I took a much simpler approach: convert the initial > > part of the MAINTAINERS file to ReST and move to a file at the > > admin-guide. So, MAINTAINERS file will now contain only the > > maintainer's database, and a single line pointing to its documentation. > > So sorry for the silence on this...I decided that I wanted to think about > it past the merge window, then promptly got buried by other stuff. > > I like this approach better than one came before, but I do still have to > wonder about what the objective is. The documentation of the MAINTAINERS > format is going to be of interest to people while the are ... looking at > or modifying MAINTAINERS. So perhaps it's already in the most useful > place? Are we really doing people a favor by telling them they have to > follow a pointer to a different file? What is gained by doing that? > > I won't dig in my heels against this forever, but I am curious to hear > what others think about why this change should (or should not) be made.
As long as I don't have to update the get_maintainers script just to satisfy some external desire to make it rst style compatible, I don't much care. About the change itself: Does the boxing with the ======= blocks align properly? It it really useful? Is there another/better way?
