Yo,
I took over upstream maintainership of the module-init-tools package
from Rusty at the end of last year. At this point, there's a public
wiki, new pre-release, bugzilla and all that jazz up and running:
http://www.kerneltools.org/ has links to the latest release.
There's a mailing list, etc. and most of us involved in m-i-t
development seem to have already noticed, but just in case, I'm sending
this reminder out to LKML now. I don't plan on shouting about every
minor release from this point on - unless it's critically serious.
If you've got any patches (preferably git trees), let me know.
Jon.
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 01:28:59 -0500 Jon Masters <[email protected]> wrote:
> I took over upstream maintainership of the module-init-tools package
> from Rusty at the end of last year.
Cool. A patch to the kernel's ./MAINTAINERS would be appreciated.
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 11:17:31PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 01:28:59 -0500 Jon Masters <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I took over upstream maintainership of the module-init-tools package
> > from Rusty at the end of last year.
> Cool. A patch to the kernel's ./MAINTAINERS would be appreciated.
Sent a patch against the MODULE SUPPORT entry in MAINTAINERS since I
guess that's the existing entry you're refering to.
Jon.
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 08:10:36 +0000 Jon Masters <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 11:17:31PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 01:28:59 -0500 Jon Masters <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I took over upstream maintainership of the module-init-tools package
> > > from Rusty at the end of last year.
>
> > Cool. A patch to the kernel's ./MAINTAINERS would be appreciated.
>
> Sent a patch against the MODULE SUPPORT entry in MAINTAINERS since I
> guess that's the existing entry you're refering to.
>
No, I was thinking of a record which explicitly mentions module-init-tools.
It's not a part of the kernel, but it is closely connected to it, and this is
useful information to have in ./MAINTAINERS.
The patch you sent claims that you maintain kernel/module.c.
Andrew Morton wrote:
> No, I was thinking of a record which explicitly mentions module-init-tools.
> It's not a part of the kernel, but it is closely connected to it, and this is
> useful information to have in ./MAINTAINERS.
Ah, now that makes more sense. I was thinking you were thinking of an
existing entry. Meh, anyway, way too late in the evening for thought.
> The patch you sent claims that you maintain kernel/module.c.
Indeed, which I don't want to. Rusty can keep that one for now :-)
Jon.
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 03:46 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > The patch you sent claims that you maintain kernel/module.c.
>
> Indeed, which I don't want to. Rusty can keep that one for now :-)
Thanks 8)
BTW, just chiming in to officially ack Jon's handover of the overgrown
example code known as module-init-tools.
Cheers!
Rusty.