[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1390412846.31946.68.camel@joe-AO722>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 09:47:26 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: hpa@...or.com, alan@...ux.intel.com, acme@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
peterz@...radead.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:core/urgent] MAINTAINERS: Restore "L:
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" entries
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 18:36 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> > Your main argument is that some people don't cc lkml
> > because section entries don't specify it explicitly.
>
> No, my main argument continues to be that having a 'at a glance'
> contact summary _in a single place_ is eminently useful to humans,
> because it's so simple:
I don't doubt simplicity is good.
> You never even
> _acknowledged_ my main point, let alone countered it successfully.
There's no 'counter' to it.
You simply don't seem to agree that some people will
choose _not_ to cc lkml when some sections have it and
others sections don't.
> Hence you came up with this false 'conclusion' prematurely and
> presented it with baseless, cocky self-confidence.
> What an annoyingly unproductive waste of time.
Any discussion where someone disagrees with you seems
to end with you asserting that. I doubt it's true.
> Thanks,
Anytime.
cheers, Joe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists