[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqL=+O=G-0uVdKGcq4T8pSzkdGV1sd_p682-6SFXuNt2mA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 16:26:53 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ian Arkver <ian.arkver.dev@...il.com>,
Steve Longerbeam <slongerbeam@...il.com>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: Convert to using %pOFn instead of device_node.name
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:45 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2018-09-12 at 15:26 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > A problem with MAINTAINERS is there is no way to tell who applies
> > patches for a given path vs. anyone else listed.
>
> try the --scm option
That kind of helps if the maintainer has listed a tree, but gives
wrong results if not. And you still have to figure out who owns which
tree. That's not hard, but it's not scriptable.
IMO, we should reserve 'M:' for maintainers with trees and use 'R:'
driver maintainers. That's redefining M as "maintainer" rather than
"mail patches to". You could still have both for a entry so you can
know who to go bug when your patch hasn't been applied.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists