On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 16:37 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 10:42 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > The maintainer info should be in the source file itself! That's the only > > reasonable way to keep it updated; now I'm all for having it machine > > parsable so that tools can use it, but it still really should be in the > > code itself, not in some central file that will always just go out of > > data, and will be a huge source of needless patch conflicts. > > If the problem is to do with people failing to update the MAINTAINERS > file, why would moving the same data into 20 or 30 source files motivate > them to keep it up to date? As far as I can see, that would just serve > to multiply the amount of stale data...
if each .c file has a MODULE_MAINTAINER() tag... people tend to update .c files a lot better than way off-the-side other files. -- if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
