[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <570C2468.7050608@youngman.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 23:25:44 +0100
From: Wols Lists <antlists@...ngman.org.uk>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, dm-devel@...hat.com,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: correct entry for LVM
On 11/04/16 22:08, Joe Perches wrote:
> I'm a native English speaker and I think that's a not
> a good argument.
>
> Having the same entry for M: and L: where M: isn't an
> actual person is not a great idea.
>
> The list is not a maintainer.
>
>
Depends on your definition of maintainer ...
To me, it means "should be notified of anything maintenance-related". By
that definition the list is a maintainer. And what do you do if you
don't have a person designated as maintainer? Do you send everything to
/dev/null?
A list is for general discussion, advice, whatever. Those two
definitions are not mutually exclusive, and therefore the list email
address may need to be identified as both/and, hence the two entries.
Cheers,
Wol
Powered by blists - more mailing lists