On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 12:19:38PM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Randy Dunlap (randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:55:36 -0700 Chris Wright wrote:
> > > * joe@xxxxxxxxxxx (joe@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > > > +F: arch/i386/xen/
> > > > +F: drivers/*/xen-*front.c
> > > > +F: drivers/xen/
> > > > +F: include/asm-i386/xen/
> > > > +F: include/xen/
> > >
> > > I think this data will easily become stale. What is the point again?
> >
> > Agreed. But not everyone wants to or should have to use git,
> > so what are the alternatives?
>
> Between git (or gitweb), existing MAINTAINERS and a bit of common
> sense (or extra sleuthing), I never perceived a significant problem.
For active kernel developers like you and me it's not a problem.
But for other people it's non-trivial to always figure out who the
maintainer of some part of the kernel is.
> Alternative could be to place info directly in source files. If not
> all of MAINTAINERS info, it could be a tag to reference the relevant
> MAINTAINERS entry.
Having the information in MAINTAINERS is what creates the least
redundancies.
> thanks,
> -chris
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
