Xose Vazquez Perez <xose.vazquez@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 6/25/25 7:27 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > >> Xose Vazquez Perez <xose.vazquez@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> replace https: with git:, delete trailing /, and identify repos as "git" >>> >>> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> (maintainer:DOCUMENTATION) >>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: DOC ML <linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (open list:DOCUMENTATION) >>> Cc: KERNEL ML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (open list) >>> Signed-off-by: Xose Vazquez Perez <xose.vazquez@xxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> MAINTAINERS | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- >>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) > >> So ... we're changing GitHub URLs from git: to https:, and Gitlab URLs >> from https: to git:? >> >> Certainly we want to fix URLs that are broken, but is there any real >> reason to churn up the MAINTAINERS file to "fix" URLs that work? > > The reason was to be *consistent* with the rest of the entries. > Because most of them(380) are using git:, vs 22 for https: Why are we concerned about consistency here? As you will have observed with your other patch, wholesale changes to a file like MAINTAINERS lead to merge conflicts. We can handle those - if there is a good reason. I'm not convinced that "consistency" counts as such. Let's just let the maintainers present their trees as they wish. Thanks, jon
