From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: correct entry for LVM Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 14:08:54 -0700 Message-ID: <1460408934.1800.87.camel@perches.com> References: <1460388039-20282-1-git-send-email-sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> <20160411155147.GB9288@agk-dp.fab.redhat.com> <570BCD85.6090807@gmail.com> <20160411162306.GC9288@agk-dp.fab.redhat.com> <570BD354.2000100@gmail.com> <570BF1DB.1040700@youngman.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <570BF1DB.1040700@youngman.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Wols Lists , Sudip Mukherjee , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alasdair Kergon , Mike Snitzer , Shaohua Li , dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Mon, 2016-04-11 at 19:50 +0100, Wols Lists wrote: > On 11/04/16 17:39, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > >=20 > > On Monday 11 April 2016 09:53 PM, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > > >=20 > > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 09:45:01PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > > >=20 > > > > L stands for "Mailing list that is relevant to this area", and = this is a > > > > mailing list. :) > > > Your proposed patch isn't changing the L entry, so this is of no > > > relevance. > > Sorry, I am not understanding. > >=20 > > The current entry in MAINTAINERS is: > > DEVICE-MAPPER=A0=A0(LVM) > > M:=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Alasdair Kergon > > M:=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Mike Snitzer > > M:=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0dm-devel@redhat.com > > L:=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0dm-devel@redhat.com > > ... > >=20 > > So my patch just removed the line : "M:=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0dm-devel@r= edhat.com" > >=20 > > So now the entry becomes : > > DEVICE-MAPPER=A0=A0(LVM) > > M:=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Alasdair Kergon > > M:=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Mike Snitzer > > L:=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0dm-devel@redhat.com > > ... > >=20 > > So, now it correctly shows dm-devel@redhat.com as a mailing list wh= ich > > should have cc to all the patches related to LVM. > >=20 > > Or am I understanding this wrong? > Yes. Because (I guess M stands for maintainer) this list has maintain= er > status. As all patches should be sent to the maintainers therefore al= l > patches should be sent to this list. >=20 > The same person can appear twice in a phone book, once under their na= me > and once under their job title. This is exactly the same situation - > this list should appear once as a list to tell people that it's a lis= t, > AND ALSO as a maintainer to tell people that patches must be sent to = the > list. >=20 > I guess English is not your first language, but the important point i= s > that M and L are not mutually exclusive. >=20 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.