| To: | Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfsprogs: update deb package maintainer, bump version |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:05:23 -0500 |
| Cc: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <1289491406.2280.7.camel@doink> |
| References: | <120112634.29711289446960016.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1289491406.2280.7.camel@doink> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:03:26AM -0600, Alex Elder wrote: > OK, I think I found the problem. You are sending to > "linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" and I'm not on that list. > I wasn't even aware of it. Something in majordomo > still shows Jim Mostek as having some sort of > ownership for that list (which would be at least 10 > year old information). > > I'd prefer everyone uses "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx", which seems > to be what most resources I found use as *the* XFS mailing > list. Discussion about this is welcome, but I think > it's best to not have multiple lists for the same purpose. Yes, we should have just one list. My preference would be linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx as vger doesn't have the various issues of the SGI mail setup, but the important bit is to concentrate on one. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfsprogs: update deb package maintainer, bump version, Alex Elder |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfsprogs: update deb package maintainer, bump version, Alex Elder |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfsprogs: update deb package maintainer, bump version, Alex Elder |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfsprogs: update deb package maintainer, bump version, Nathan Scott |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |