On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 10:15:13 -0200 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On the past approaches, was planning to keep the documentation > about what's at the MAINTAINERS file inside it, but that would > require running an external script or use some Sphinx extension. > > This time, I took a much simpler approach: convert the initial > part of the MAINTAINERS file to ReST and move to a file at the > admin-guide. So, MAINTAINERS file will now contain only the > maintainer's database, and a single line pointing to its documentation. So sorry for the silence on this...I decided that I wanted to think about it past the merge window, then promptly got buried by other stuff. I like this approach better than one came before, but I do still have to wonder about what the objective is. The documentation of the MAINTAINERS format is going to be of interest to people while the are ... looking at or modifying MAINTAINERS. So perhaps it's already in the most useful place? Are we really doing people a favor by telling them they have to follow a pointer to a different file? What is gained by doing that? I won't dig in my heels against this forever, but I am curious to hear what others think about why this change should (or should not) be made. Thanks, jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
