Re: staging: lustre: Less checks in mgc_process_recover_log() after error detection

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:00:34PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > If you were a lustre dev then I would accept these renames definitely.
> 
> I find this information interesting.
> Would any more contributors like to share their opinion?
> 
> 
> > I do not think I have been unfair to you.
> 
> This view is correct in principle.
> 
> 
> > There was no element of surprise.
> 
> I am trying to discuss further "special" update suggestions
> where the topic focus might evolve to new directions.
> I got the impression that you had some difficulties already
> with my previous proposals. So I am unsure about the general
> change acceptance from you alone.
> 
> You pointed out that you are maintainer for this software area.
> I was not so aware about this detail while I noticed that
> you are very active Linux software developer.
> (You are not mentioned in the file "MAINTAINERS" for example.)

Hi Greg,

I propose that we add Dan as reviewer for Staging subsystem in the
MAINTAINERS file. He is here for a long time and has been accepted as a
Reviewer by almost all of us who works with Staging.

regards
sudip
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [DMA Engine]     [Linux GPIO]     [Linux SPI]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Coverity]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Yosemite Backpacking]
  Powered by Linux