From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 517C1C28CF6 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2018 06:29:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B26F92088E for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2018 06:29:03 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B26F92088E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726431AbeG1HyV (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jul 2018 03:54:21 -0400 Received: from szxga07-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.35]:53298 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726061AbeG1HyU (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jul 2018 03:54:20 -0400 Received: from DGGEMS412-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.58]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id E785795748774; Sat, 28 Jul 2018 14:28:56 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.177.253.249] (10.177.253.249) by smtp.huawei.com (10.3.19.212) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.382.0; Sat, 28 Jul 2018 14:28:53 +0800 Subject: Re: About the V9fs-developer list (Was: [PATCH] 9p: fix multiple To: Dominique Martinet , Eric Van Hensbergen , Ron Minnich , Latchesar Ionkov References: <20180728055945.GA16684@nautica> CC: , , From: piaojun Message-ID: <5B5C0D12.3070208@huawei.com> Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 14:28:34 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180728055945.GA16684@nautica> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.177.253.249] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Could we cancel the limitation of recipients' number? Thanks, Jun On 2018/7/28 13:59, Dominique Martinet wrote: > NULL-pointer-dereferences) > Reply-To: > In-Reply-To: <5B5BBFCE.50002@huawei.com> > > > (Re-added Eric, ron, Latchesar to the recipients and removed a few > others to make v9fs accept this mail without moderation, sorry Thomas & > others) > > > TL;DR: should we move the list, and should I send a patch adding myself > to maintainers? > > > piaojun wrote on Sat, Jul 28, 2018: >> I could not recieve the original patch. Did the patch CC v9fs developer >> maillist? > > Yes, but as usual there were too many recipients (I removed some like > you did previously), so the patch is probably queued for moderation > somewhere. > > For this specific patch, you can find the original message here from the > lkml archives: > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180727110558.5479-1-tomasbortoli@gmail.com > > > (Or more generally for patches I say I've accepted, my current process > is to push them to my 9p-test branch[1] then once they have been tested > push the same thing to my 9p-next branch[2] that will be taken into > linux-next; this is already in 9p-next now : > https://github.com/martinetd/linux/commit/49fd386d1e67d7876770d46b57359c6891d4cb70 > > [1] https://github.com/martinetd/linux/commits/9p-test > [2] https://github.com/martinetd/linux/commits/9p-next > > I always check that linux-kernel@vger was in copy and insert the Link: > tag as appropriate if you need to reply) > > > > > In general though I'd realy like to bring up the subject of this mailing > list as I feel it's been a burden lately. > I'm not even an admin of the list so I feel a little out of place here > but should I go around snooping to ask if we could make a new > v9fs@vger.kernel.org mailing list and abandon the ship here? > > A second question that's been on my mind lately is if I'm going to be > gathering 9p patchs from now I should probably start considering sending > a patch to add myself to MAINTAINER. > > I've had a quick look at the file though and there aren't many > subsystems with 4+ maintainer (breakdown if I can count: 1301 with 1, > 342 with 2, 104 with 3, 31 with 4, 4 with 5, 1 with 6 and 10 > maintainers) and more to the point I also think having too many > maintainers is a nuisance, which is why I've been reluctant to add > myself. > > I however don't want to forcefully remove anyone either, Eric has been > somewhat active with three messages in may at least, and Latchesar akced > patchs this past year as well (September but still within 12 months) so > he's definitely still reading these emails a bit... > That being said, it's not like retiring from maintainers means one won't > be able to look and comment at patches, just that patches will get less > recipients and might go to through to the list more easily. > > To be honest I wouldn't care at all if the list worked well, but in the > state things are in it's easy for me to miss a patch unless someone > redirects it to me like Greg did recently. > > There isn't any hurry, but let's discuss this and move forward. > > > What do you three think about this? > What do others think? > > Thanks! >