linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: correct entry for LVM

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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