From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA86A7F37 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 14:16:38 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 14:16:35 -0600 From: Ben Myers Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: remove the incorrect entry in the MAINTAINER file Message-ID: <20140106201635.GB1935@sgi.com> References: <1386935393-23559-1-git-send-email-zwu.kernel@gmail.com> <20131213163131.GC20803@infradead.org> <20131213202747.GL1935@sgi.com> <20131213220110.GW10988@dastard> <20131216152053.GB12360@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131216152053.GB12360@infradead.org> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Zhi Yong Wu , Zhi Yong Wu , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 07:20:53AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 09:01:10AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Well, I stand by what I wrote in that thread. There is absolutely > > nothing wrong with having xfs@oss.sgi.com listed as a maintainer; > > different and unusual doesn't mean it is wrong. > > I think life is much better if XFS follows the usual convention. We > already drill into submitters heads that they should send patches and > questions to the list for the whole kernel, and the angry behaviour of > many maintainers when they get personal mail helps with that, too. > > Given that we already have maintainers names listed, and the list in the > proper field I also can't see what this should buy us. Either way is fine with me. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs