On Mon, 2016-04-11 at 19:50 +0100, Wols Lists wrote: > On 11/04/16 17:39, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > > > On Monday 11 April 2016 09:53 PM, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 09:45:01PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > > > > > > > L stands for "Mailing list that is relevant to this area", and this is a > > > > mailing list. :) > > > Your proposed patch isn't changing the L entry, so this is of no > > > relevance. > > Sorry, I am not understanding. > > > > The current entry in MAINTAINERS is: > > DEVICE-MAPPER (LVM) > > M: Alasdair Kergon <agk@xxxxxxxxxx> > > M: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> > > M: dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > > L: dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > > ... > > > > So my patch just removed the line : "M: dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx" > > > > So now the entry becomes : > > DEVICE-MAPPER (LVM) > > M: Alasdair Kergon <agk@xxxxxxxxxx> > > M: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> > > L: dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > > ... > > > > So, now it correctly shows dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx as a mailing list which > > should have cc to all the patches related to LVM. > > > > Or am I understanding this wrong? > Yes. Because (I guess M stands for maintainer) this list has maintainer > status. As all patches should be sent to the maintainers therefore all > patches should be sent to this list. > > The same person can appear twice in a phone book, once under their name > and once under their job title. This is exactly the same situation - > this list should appear once as a list to tell people that it's a list, > AND ALSO as a maintainer to tell people that patches must be sent to the > list. > > I guess English is not your first language, but the important point is > that M and L are not mutually exclusive. > I'm a native English speaker and I think that's a not a good argument. Having the same entry for M: and L: where M: isn't an actual person is not a great idea. The list is not a maintainer. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
