On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 I agree so, and guess that some guy will submit the same patch later. We will have to roll back to this discussion again. > 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 -- Regards, Zhi Yong Wu _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
