On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 09:01:10AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > Well, I stand by what I wrote in that thread. There is absolutely > nothing wrong with having xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx listed as a maintainer; > different and unusual doesn't mean it is wrong. I think life is much better if XFS follows the usual convention. We already drill into submitters heads that they should send patches and questions to the list for the whole kernel, and the angry behaviour of many maintainers when they get personal mail helps with that, too. Given that we already have maintainers names listed, and the list in the proper field I also can't see what this should buy us. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
