On Fri, 16 Oct 2015, Joe Perches <[email protected]> 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 -- 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/
