Re: [linux-usb-devel] [PATCH] [497/2many] MAINTAINERS - USB HUB DRIVER

[David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sunday 12 August 2007, joe@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Add file pattern to MAINTAINER entry
> 
> Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 

I seem to be missing some context for these "2many" patches; and
don't really see any in the MARC archives either.  This seems like
about 600 patches out of the blue.  A lot for RC3, even if it is
"just" for the MAINTAINERS file.

Is the motivation here purely to make it easier to find out how to
report bugs and suggest improvements?  If so, that seems like only
one of many related issues ...

Is there general agreement that these "F:" entries should be used?
Rather than, say, embedding references in the relevant parts of
the source tree, adjacent to those files, where they would be more
visible to people making relevant changes.

I'm also concerned with the reality that the MAINTAINERS file is
not accurate.  The $SUBJECT patch is one example; the named maintainer
is no longer active (in that area, at least) and the named driver is
not actually separable from the rest of usbcore.  Better IMO to just
remove the "hub driver" entry.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Linux-usb-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-users