LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Few ideas...
@ 2008-02-29 22:48 Krzysztof Halasa
  2008-02-29 23:11 ` Jan Engelhardt
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Krzysztof Halasa @ 2008-02-29 22:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

Hi,

There was a thread about MODULE_MAINTAINER but how about a tag which
a) would be present in source files, not necessarily one per module
c) would be machine-parseable
d) would have _no_ effect on object code (i.e., would be ignored by
   the compiler completely)?

I guess it would be more useful than current MAINTAINERS file and we
would at last know immediately what to put in "To:" line.



Another idea? Why don't we move all the kernel-related lists to
vger.kernel.org, making them "open" in the process?



Want more? :-)
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: Few ideas...
  2008-02-29 22:48 Few ideas Krzysztof Halasa
@ 2008-02-29 23:11 ` Jan Engelhardt
  2008-02-29 23:17   ` Krzysztof Halasa
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2008-02-29 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Krzysztof Halasa; +Cc: linux-kernel


On Feb 29 2008 23:48, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
>Hi,
>
>There was a thread about MODULE_MAINTAINER but how about a tag which
>a) would be present in source files, not necessarily one per module
>c) would be machine-parseable
>d) would have _no_ effect on object code (i.e., would be ignored by
>   the compiler completely)?

d: I think it would not bad if it were included in the resulting
object file like MODULE_AUTHOR is.
If anything, MODULE_AUTHOR could be removed, because the original
author(s) are usually listed at the top of the .c file and not
always the ones to talk to when there is a bug (=> the maintainer
is).

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: Few ideas...
  2008-02-29 23:11 ` Jan Engelhardt
@ 2008-02-29 23:17   ` Krzysztof Halasa
  2008-02-29 23:27     ` Jan Engelhardt
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Krzysztof Halasa @ 2008-02-29 23:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jan Engelhardt; +Cc: linux-kernel

Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de> writes:

> d: I think it would not bad if it were included in the resulting
> object file like MODULE_AUTHOR is.

I specifically don't want it in the binary - maintainers change, it's
not a point of contact for end users. It would be for source code ops
only.

> If anything, MODULE_AUTHOR could be removed, because the original
> author(s) are usually listed at the top of the .c file and not
> always the ones to talk to when there is a bug (=> the maintainer
> is).

Perhaps it's there because of copyright.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: Few ideas...
  2008-02-29 23:17   ` Krzysztof Halasa
@ 2008-02-29 23:27     ` Jan Engelhardt
  2008-03-01 14:13       ` Krzysztof Halasa
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2008-02-29 23:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Krzysztof Halasa; +Cc: linux-kernel


On Mar 1 2008 00:17, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
>
>> d: I think it would not bad if it were included in the resulting
>> object file like MODULE_AUTHOR is.
>
>I specifically don't want it in the binary - maintainers change, it's
>not a point of contact for end users. It would be for source code ops
>only.

So what apart from the parsability of a MODULE_MAINTAINER() tag,
what is different from authors engraving their name into a
comment at the start of the .c file?

>> If anything, MODULE_AUTHOR could be removed, because the original
>> author(s) are usually listed at the top of the .c file and not
>> always the ones to talk to when there is a bug (=> the maintainer
>> is).
>
>Perhaps it's there because of copyright.

A number of .c files (even those that are not just built-in, but can
also be built as =m) do not have a MODULE_AUTHOR(); and copyright is
even valid when there is no apparent author name.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: Few ideas...
  2008-02-29 23:27     ` Jan Engelhardt
@ 2008-03-01 14:13       ` Krzysztof Halasa
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Krzysztof Halasa @ 2008-03-01 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jan Engelhardt; +Cc: linux-kernel

Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de> writes:

> So what apart from the parsability of a MODULE_MAINTAINER() tag,
> what is different from authors engraving their name into a
> comment at the start of the .c file?

Authors != maintainers.

A script could parse the tags and fill Cc: appropriately.

> A number of .c files (even those that are not just built-in, but can
> also be built as =m) do not have a MODULE_AUTHOR(); and copyright is
> even valid when there is no apparent author name.

Sure, though it's a bit harder to find who is it exactly.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2008-03-01 14:14 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-02-29 22:48 Few ideas Krzysztof Halasa
2008-02-29 23:11 ` Jan Engelhardt
2008-02-29 23:17   ` Krzysztof Halasa
2008-02-29 23:27     ` Jan Engelhardt
2008-03-01 14:13       ` Krzysztof Halasa

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).