From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:17:25 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] make mc13783 code generic
In-Reply-To: <20101130151540.GN20449@pengutronix.de>
References: <AANLkTimfDHRXZjB5=Ld9YSFzqh-hVWUTy-TQFV=GEaGA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1291110118.3235.27.camel@realization>
	<20101130143247.GI20449@pengutronix.de>
	<20101130145517.GF32368@sirena.org.uk>
	<20101130151540.GN20449@pengutronix.de>
Message-ID: <20101130151725.GN7403@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 04:15:40PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 02:55:17PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > interest in most of the code he's touching.  If you use the --nogit
> > option (which is the default with current -next) get_maintainer.pl is a
> > bit safer but you then need to think about people who might be actively

> I tried --nogit some time ago, but it still used git.  After looking
> again I probably should have passed --nogit-fallback, too.

Oh, erk - hadn't noticed the fallback stuff.  The general point we're
both making does still stand, get_maintainer is a useful starting point
but should never be considered gospel.