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

David Brownell wrote:
> 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 is no longer active (in that area, at least) and the named driver is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.

I don't speak for Joe, but:  If there is a good mapping from MAINTAINERS
to paths then more submitters will use MAINTAINERS more frequently.  A
side effect would be that outdated entries in MAINTAINERS would become
apparent more quickly, and updated more quickly.  Of course that's just
speculation --- but your comment on this "hub driver" entry, prompted by
Joe's patch, seems to support that speculation.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== =--- -==-=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel