On Sunday 12 August 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Add file pattern to MAINTAINER entry > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >
I seem to be missing some context for these "2many" patches; and don't really see any in the MARC archives either. This seems like about 600 patches out of the blue. A lot for RC3, even if it is "just" for the MAINTAINERS file. Is the motivation here purely to make it easier to find out how to report bugs and suggest improvements? If so, that seems like only one of many related issues ... Is there general agreement that these "F:" entries should be used? Rather than, say, embedding references in the relevant parts of the source tree, adjacent to those files, where they would be more visible to people making relevant changes. I'm also concerned with the reality that the MAINTAINERS file is not accurate. The $SUBJECT patch is one example; the named maintainer is no longer active (in that area, at least) and the named driver is not actually separable from the rest of usbcore. Better IMO to just remove the "hub driver" entry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
