On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 21:35 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2015, Joe Perches <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 12:14 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> 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. > > > > I find the concept of adding separate MAINTAINERS files odd > > and at best and not good for the community. > > Let me get this straight. You're rejecting a trivial patch increasing > the usefulness of a simple script to a number of kernel developers not > on technical grounds but because in your view the intended use is not > good for the community?
Yes. I think it's perfectly fine to keep something like this out-of-tree in your own repository. > So had I said, this patch enables one to write > unit tests for the script with various input files, the outcome might > have been different? No. Nice try though. -- 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/
