Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757437AbXHSULG (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:11:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754422AbXHSUKx (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:10:53 -0400 Received: from khc.piap.pl ([195.187.100.11]:55363 "EHLO khc.piap.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757187AbXHSUKd (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:10:33 -0400 To: "Robert P. J. Day" Cc: Joe Perches , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: tracking MAINTAINERS versus tracking SUBSYSTEMS References: <1187483578.4200.51.camel@localhost> From: Krzysztof Halasa Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:10:27 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Robert P. J. Day's message of "Sun, 19 Aug 2007 08:22:18 -0400 (EDT)") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 992 Lines: 22 "Robert P. J. Day" writes: > i'm confused -- i thought that was sort of the whole purpose of this > exercise, to match parts of the kernel source tree against the > maintainer for those parts, and to do that via the defined > "subsystem" which is currently used in MAINTAINERS. > > you can, of course, banish the concept of a subsystem entirely and > work purely from a file and directory perspective, but i think the > notion of the kernel tree being composed of subsystems is a useful > idea. that's just my opinion, though. Obviously the concept of subsystems is the right one, except that the subsystems aren't that well defined (or they are but not for average kernel user) - thus "file masks". -- Krzysztof Halasa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/