From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id oABG3urk060053 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:04:02 -0600 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:05:23 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfsprogs: update deb package maintainer, bump version Message-ID: <20101111160523.GA4223@infradead.org> References: <120112634.29711289446960016.JavaMail.root@acxmail-au2.aconex.com> <1289491406.2280.7.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1289491406.2280.7.camel@doink> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Alex Elder Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Anibal Monsalve Salazar , Nathan Scott , xfs On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:03:26AM -0600, Alex Elder wrote: > OK, I think I found the problem. You are sending to > "linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com" and I'm not on that list. > I wasn't even aware of it. Something in majordomo > still shows Jim Mostek as having some sort of > ownership for that list (which would be at least 10 > year old information). > > I'd prefer everyone uses "xfs@oss.sgi.com", which seems > to be what most resources I found use as *the* XFS mailing > list. Discussion about this is welcome, but I think > it's best to not have multiple lists for the same purpose. Yes, we should have just one list. My preference would be linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org as vger doesn't have the various issues of the SGI mail setup, but the important bit is to concentrate on one. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs