| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: remove the incorrect entry in the MAINTAINER file |
| From: | Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 6 Jan 2014 14:16:35 -0600 |
| Cc: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>, Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20131216152053.GB12360@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1386935393-23559-1-git-send-email-zwu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> <20131213163131.GC20803@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131213202747.GL1935@xxxxxxx> <20131213220110.GW10988@dastard> <20131216152053.GB12360@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 07:20:53AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 09:01:10AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Well, I stand by what I wrote in that thread. There is absolutely > > nothing wrong with having xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx listed as a maintainer; > > different and unusual doesn't mean it is wrong. > > I think life is much better if XFS follows the usual convention. We > already drill into submitters heads that they should send patches and > questions to the list for the whole kernel, and the angry behaviour of > many maintainers when they get personal mail helps with that, too. > > Given that we already have maintainers names listed, and the list in the > proper field I also can't see what this should buy us. Either way is fine with me. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH] xfstests: kill lib/random.c, Josef Bacik |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] xfstests: aio-stress, use calloc for thread_info array, Jeff Mahoney |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH] xfstests: kill lib/random.c, Josef Bacik |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: remove the incorrect entry in the MAINTAINER file, Zhi Yong Wu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |