Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 21:55:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 21:55:17 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:13838 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 21:55:04 -0500 Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:54:04 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Chris Ricker cc: World Domination Now! Subject: Re: A modest proposal -- We need a patch penguin In-Reply-To: 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 On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Chris Ricker wrote: > > We're agreed that the files themselves are the best indicator of where to > route patches, and that MAINTAINERS isn't useful for much besides deciding > who should get IPO offers ;-). What I'm wondering is where I, as someone > who is listed in some of the Documentation/* stuff as its maintainer, should > be sending patches. You want a hierarchy, and I think that's perfectly > reasonable, but I have no idea who the layer of the hierarchy between me and > you is.... Ahh.. I had the same problem with Documentation/Configure.help, as you saw. My solution in that case (when the issue came to a flame-fest) was to just split up the documentation - which makes it a whole lot more maintainable for everybody, and also makes it fairly explicit who maintains it for most cases. Basically, I'd really like documentation to go with the thing it documents. This is something where the docbook stuff helped noticeably. Linus - 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/