On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 11:36:39AM +0200, Yann Droneaud wrote: > Le 03.07.2013 11:24, Dave Chinner a écrit : > >On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 10:14:41AM +0200, Yann Droneaud wrote: > >>Le 03.07.2013 08:40, Dave Chinner a écrit : > >>>On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 05:00:47PM +0200, Yann Droneaud wrote: > >>>>This patch changes type of xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > >>>> > >>>>The output of ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl is > >>>>modified to report xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx as a list: > >>> > >>>What's the problem with that? All XFS patches and problem > >>>reports should be sent to the xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx list. There are far > >>>more people than just the maintainer that can triage problems, > >>>answer questions and review patches... > >>> > >> > >>It was just disturbing: I was looking for a list for XFS > >>and found only maintainers. > > > >That's what the: > > > >L: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > > > >entry is, yes? > > > > In the output of ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl: > > Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx> (supporter:XFS FILESYSTEM) > Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx> (supporter:XFS FILESYSTEM) > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx (supporter:XFS FILESYSTEM) > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list) You're smarter than a dumb script. If the information that the script parses is correct and the dumb script doesn't give you the right information, then what needs fixing? Seriously, all you are proving is the old adage that scripts/get_maintainer.pl should be considered harmful because people use it without first engaging their brain. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
