Le 03.07.2013 11:50, Dave Chinner a ÃcritÂ:
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 11:36:39AM +0200, Yann Droneaud wrote:
Le 03.07.2013 11:24, Dave Chinner a ÃcritÂ:
>On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 10:14:41AM +0200, Yann Droneaud wrote:
>>Le 03.07.2013 08:40, Dave Chinner a ÃcritÂ:
>>>On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 05:00:47PM +0200, Yann Droneaud wrote:
>>>>This patch changes type of xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>The output of ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl is
>>>>modified to report xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx as a list:
>>>What's the problem with that? All XFS patches and problem
>>>reports should be sent to the xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx list. There are far
>>>more people than just the maintainer that can triage problems,
>>>answer questions and review patches...
>>It was just disturbing: I was looking for a list for XFS
>>and found only maintainers.
>That's what the:
>entry is, yes?
In the output of ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl:
Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx> (supporter:XFS FILESYSTEM)
Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx> (supporter:XFS FILESYSTEM)
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx (supporter:XFS FILESYSTEM)
linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list)
You're smarter than a dumb script. If the information that the
script parses is correct and the dumb script doesn't give you the
right information, then what needs fixing?
And what about:
If you are the only one[*] to abuse ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl,
then what needs fixing ?
[*] I have found three other examples of duplicating mailing list as
$ sed -n 's/^L:[[:space:]]*//p' MAINTAINERS | sort | uniq > L
$ sed -n 's/^M:[[:space:]]*//p' MAINTAINERS | sort | uniq > M
$ comm -12 L M
I've sent a patch for xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx and dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx,
in my first pass I've missed ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Seriously, all you are proving is the old adage that
scripts/get_maintainer.pl should be considered harmful because
people use it without first engaging their brain.
Just thinking about the whole picture.
In this case ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl is going to be right most of
except for 3 subsystems on about 1160. So having the same address for
and list is a rather uncommon case. Which could be misleading for most.