From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?=) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:39:07 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag In-Reply-To: <56309419.4060908@samsung.com> References: <1445960557-24328-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20151027172428.GB21070@earth> <20151027181555.GE5828@x1> <1445971482.2757.27.camel@perches.com> <20151028082446.GF5828@x1> <56309419.4060908@samsung.com> Message-ID: <20151028093907.GP4931@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello, On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 06:23:37PM +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 28.10.2015 17:24, Lee Jones wrote: > > You guys are pushing back like this is some kind of demotion. > > That's not the case at all. All it does is better describe the (very > > worthy) function you *actually* provide. > > It is getting into dispute about entire change of yours... which is not > what I want. I agree with your general idea but I was referring only to > that particular case - the Samsung PMICs (and Maxim PMICs/MUICs which > would fall into same category). Not being affected by this change, I wonder what the technical difference is if someone is listed as reviewer instead of maintainer. Does get_maintainer.pl behave differently? Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |