Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch -scripts/

From: Arjan van de Ven
Date: Mon Aug 13 2007 - 21:23:43 EST

On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 16:37 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 10:42 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > The maintainer info should be in the source file itself! That's the only
> > reasonable way to keep it updated; now I'm all for having it machine
> > parsable so that tools can use it, but it still really should be in the
> > code itself, not in some central file that will always just go out of
> > data, and will be a huge source of needless patch conflicts.
> If the problem is to do with people failing to update the MAINTAINERS
> file, why would moving the same data into 20 or 30 source files motivate
> them to keep it up to date? As far as I can see, that would just serve
> to multiply the amount of stale data...

if each .c file has a MODULE_MAINTAINER() tag...

people tend to update .c files a lot better than way off-the-side other

if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at)
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at