[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1460415825.1800.100.camel@perches.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:03:45 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Wols Lists <antlists@...ngman.org.uk>,
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 Mon, 2016-04-11 at 23:25 +0100, Wols Lists wrote:
> 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".
I think that's not a particularly good definition.
MAINTAINERS describes the M: entry as:
M: Mail patches to: FullName <address@...ain>
That _person_ is generally responsible for vetting patches
and bug fixing.
> By that definition the list is a maintainer.
Not given there's a specific L: entry that's described
L: Mailing list that is relevant to this area
> And what do you do if you
> don't have a person designated as maintainer?
Then you don't have a maintainer
> Do you send everything to /dev/null?
Patches are sent to lkml.
> 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.
disagree.
cheers, Joe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists