On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 00:09 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed 2017-08-02 11:15:09, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > IMO, the parse-maintainters.pl (sorting) script makes the need for > > > separate > > > MAINTAINERS files much less important since the file can be "fixed" easily > > > at any time. > > > > For me it's not the "fixing". It's the inevitable merge mess, and the > > two hundred commits that I have to go through. > > > > That said, the extra time just to look for MAINTAINERS files makes me > > unhappy. It may be just .3s on Joe's machine, but it's presumably much > > more when things aren't in the filesystem caches. I (like apparently > > Joe) have an SSD so it's not a big deal for me, but.. > > > > Just having a single MAINTAINERS directory would alleviate that > > concern. > > Well, I am one of those slow-spinning-rust users. (I do have SSD here, > but bcache is not exactly easy to configure with already-existing > setup). > > Using git is already pretty painful... but I believe having > net/MAINTAINERS file which clearly tells you who maintains this > directory would save time even for me. Grepping MAINTAINERS is not > currently very easy ("is it NET subsystem or NETWORK subsystem?", is > it listed as "ALSA" or "ADVANCED LINUX SOUND..."?) and splitting it to > directories would help a lot. > > Having single directory with all the MAINTAINERS files would be even > worse than current situation..
What does not work well about scripts/get_maintainer.pl ?
