On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 07:47:06PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Alan, if MAINTAINERS scaled perfectly I wouldn't have had to spend three
> months just trying to figure out who was reponsible for each of the
> [Cc]onfig.in files. And even with that amount of effort mostly failing.
Could that be because there _is no_ maintainer for the config.in files?
Therefore, splitting up the MAINTAINERS file achieves nothing.
However, for the specific times that you've unfortunately come across
the problem, and one of the times it was to do with the ARM config.in
file, I can definitely say that the information _has_ been in the
maintainers file, and it _is_ up to date. Here, let me give an
example:
ARM PORT
P: Russell King
M: linux@arm.linux.org.uk
L: linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk
W: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
S: Maintained
I don't think that you can say that the MAINTAINERS file has failed in
this case, and cutting it up into little pieces solves precisely
nothing.
--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 23 2001 - 21:00:41 EST