From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: keith.busch@intel.com (Keith Busch)
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:08:32 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 0/6] Six NVMeOF-related patches
In-Reply-To: <20161021133252.GB16449@infradead.org>
References: <e96f7b21-9686-c24f-9c64-e6fb4b44fea0@sandisk.com>
 <1ae62d3e-8e23-6458-e822-7a11d3f9897f@grimberg.me>
 <dc3f4a94-72bd-469d-16ba-b1a6619f8609@sandisk.com>
 <20161021133252.GB16449@infradead.org>
Message-ID: <20161021150831.GA5294@localhost.localdomain>

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016@06:32:52AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Maybe.  Or we should just add Sagi and me to the general NVMe antry
> and replace the Fabrics git tree with a general NVMe one.
> 
> Keith, Jens - any preferences?

I've no preference. I assumed, though, fabrics developers/users found
the public staging tree useful since it seems to be changing faster
than the rest of the driver. We don't have an nvme specific tree, so
if everyone's okay going through the general block, then let's add the
maintainer entries.