On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 11:04 PM Jorge Lopez <jorgealtxwork@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > Failure to run your tool and include all the appropriate parties in > the review was an oversight on my part. I will make sure it is done > in the following patches. Hmm... It uses get_maintainer.pl which I believe uses the MAINTAINERS database more or less correctly. I use the script on a daily basis. > Regarding the statement ... > > Please, be careful and read all comments you have been given and react > to them either by explaining why it's not worth to address or with an > addressed changes. > > All other comments have been addressed in the commit notes and via > email. I have noticed that by reading the next patch. As I mentioned there, it should be squashed to the first one, I never expected to see two patches on this topic. > The comments addressed were > > - As a quick fix it's good, but have you had a chance to understand why > this failure happened in the first place? > > - Can you check my theory that is expressed in the code below? > - Leverage ge2maintainer tool to include all appropriate parties. > (See earlier comment) > > Did I address all the comments? If not, please accept my apologies > and kindly point to the question(s) I need to address. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
