[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MAINTAINERS file and .el files?

From: Pavel Janík
Subject: Re: MAINTAINERS file and .el files?
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 13:42:34 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/21.1.50 (i386-suse-linux-gnu)

   From: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
   Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 14:04:21 +0200 (IST)

   > > do we need .el files listed in MAINTAINERS? We do have this information 
   > > .el files in Author: or Maintainer:, so I think it is useless/duplicated 
   > > Lisp part of this file should be autogenerated.
   > AFAIU, Stefan wanted only those files to be listed whose Maintainer 
   > headers says "FSF".  In that case, it's not redundant: no one says that 
   > the original author must be a maintainer.

So why e.g. hexl.el doesn't contain:

Maintainer: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>

? The current state contains one indirect reference. If I'm looking for the
maintainer of e.g. hexl.el I will look into its header. It contains FSF so
I must look into MAINTAINERS (which, BTW, is not included in make-dist
output right now. Does this mean that this file is only for developers and
we do not want non-developers to send fixes directly to the maintainer? If
it is so, I have completely missed the meaning of MAINTAINERS, so the rest
of this letter is pointless :-). It would be much better to include these
informations in each file and autogenerate this list of maintainers.

   > > Maybe we should invent similar conventions we use for .el files for
   > > .c files and autogenerate this file completely. What do you think?
   > I think it would be a waste of effort.  What's wrong with having that
   > info in a single file?

It is not in a single file right now. It is either in the file xyz.el OR in
MAINTAINERS. Much better (IMHO) is having these informations completely in
one file (like MAINTAINERS) or each file should contain this information
(and, optionally, having all of these informations in one file like

How should I proceed e.g. if I'd like to commit this:

--- hexl.el.~1.69.~     Tue Nov 20 07:50:19 2001
+++ hexl.el     Sun Nov 25 13:31:17 2001
@@ -254,7 +254,6 @@
     (setq require-final-newline nil)
     ;; Add hooks to rehexlify or dehexlify on various events.
-    (make-local-hook 'after-revert-hook)
     (add-hook 'after-revert-hook 'hexl-after-revert-hook nil t)
     (make-local-hook 'change-major-mode-hook)

The header states that Maintainer is FSF. Before MAINTAINERS, I'd go ahead
and simply commit it. Should I now send it to Eli, because of an entry in
Pavel Janík

If you run untrusted binaries - you are screwed.  If you run
them as root - all users on your system are screwed.  If your MUA
(or browser, etc.) can run untrusted code - see above.
                  -- Alexander Viro in linux-kernel about worms

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]