Message-ID: <1481576210.1764.41.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add maintainers to the admin guide
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
Cc: Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@darmarit.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 12:56:50 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20161212110045.0cd6b16c@lwn.net>
References: <cover.1480680547.git.mchehab@s-opensource.com>
         <20161212110045.0cd6b16c@lwn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1667
Lines: 34

On Mon, 2016-12-12 at 11:00 -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Fri,  2 Dec 2016 10:15:13 -0200
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com> wrote:
> 
> > On the past approaches, was planning to keep the documentation
> > about what's at the MAINTAINERS file inside it, but that would
> > require running an external script or use some Sphinx extension.
> > 
> > This time, I took a much simpler approach: convert the initial
> > part of the MAINTAINERS file to ReST and move to a file at the
> > admin-guide. So, MAINTAINERS file will now contain only the
> > maintainer's database, and a single line pointing to its documentation.
> 
> So sorry for the silence on this...I decided that I wanted to think about
> it past the merge window, then promptly got buried by other stuff.
> 
> I like this approach better than one came before, but I do still have to
> wonder about what the objective is.  The documentation of the MAINTAINERS
> format is going to be of interest to people while the are ... looking at
> or modifying MAINTAINERS.  So perhaps it's already in the most useful
> place?  Are we really doing people a favor by telling them they have to
> follow a pointer to a different file?  What is gained by doing that?
> 
> I won't dig in my heels against this forever, but I am curious to hear
> what others think about why this change should (or should not) be made.

As long as I don't have to update the get_maintainers script
just to satisfy some external desire to make it rst style
compatible, I don't much care.

About the change itself:

Does the boxing with the ======= blocks align properly?
It it really useful?  Is there another/better way?