Em Sat, 21 Sep 2019 13:13:07 -0600 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 08:23:26 -0300 > Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > A simple/lazy solution would be to apply the enclosed patch - or a > > variant of it that would place the contents of MAINTAINERS outside > > process/index.html, and add instructions about how to use > > get_maintainers.pl. > > > > Jon, > > > > Please let me know if you're willing to accept something like that. > > [Sorry for the slowness, I'm kind of tuned out this week] > > I guess we could do that as a short-term thing. > > In truth, though, this thing is a database; printing it out linearly is > perhaps not the best thing we could do. There should be better ways we > could provide access to it. Yeah, as this is a database, instead of just outputting it on a formatted way, it is possible to generate other types of output. We could, for example, have an extension with would implement something like: .. maintainers:: <subdir> Which would call get-maintainers in order to parse a subsystem-specific set of entries and printing the maintainership details. This could be added at the subsystem-specific profile, for the subsystems that have it. > > Also, that file is nearly 18K lines long. If some unsuspecting person > generates a PDF and prints it, they're going to get something along the > lines of 300 pages of MAINTAINERS, which may not quite be what they had > in mind. It costs (almost) nothing to put that into HTML output, but > other formats could be painful. Even if we go for adding a Sphinx tag that would produce a parsed output for a system-specific profile, we'll still have several other subsystems that won't have a profile for a while, so I would still consider having somewhere an output with its contents. Yeah, someone might be tempted to print it, but we could place it on a separate PDF, in order to minimize the risks of someone printing the 300+ pages. > > So I dunno, we need to think this through a bit... > > jon Thanks, Mauro