On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 04:16:23PM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 03:00:12AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 11:39 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 06:23:22AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > SCHEDULER: > > > > > ... > > > > > R: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> (kernel/sched/rt.c) > > > > > R: Juri Lelli <jundri.le...@gmail.com> (kernel/sched/deadline.c) > > > > > > > > Maybe a better syntax might be something like: > > > > R: Steven Rostedt > > > > F: kernel/sched/rt.c > > > > > > > > where optional F:/X: lines override the default > > > > assumption of all F:/X: from the section. > > > > > > Would RF: make sense? Instead of the indenting. > > > > Maybe. > > > > As a preface: > > > > I doubt the need for associating a subset of the files > > patterns for a subsystem with a particular reviewer. > > > > If a reviewer is interested enough in a subsystem to > > volunteer to read patches then that reviewer likely won't > > be overburdened by getting a few more emailed patches > > that may be outside a scope of interest. > > I agree. And if a subset of files needs a separate set of maintainers > or reviewers, it doesn't seem excessive to split it into a separate > MAINTAINERS entry. For instance, if you want kernel/sched/rt.c to have > an additional set of maintainers/reviewers, just add a MAINTAINERS entry > for "SCHEDULER - REALTIME" with an appropriate "F:" line.
Ideally I'd want semantic boundaries, but given this all needs to be robot parsed that's going to be a massive pain. I guess I'm just not going to use it then. Too much hassle. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
