On Tue, 2014-07-08 at 14:52 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 02:01:04PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-07-08 at 13:41 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[]
> > > scripts: Teach get_maintainer.pl about the new "R:" tag
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> > Paul, I already sent you a better version over a month ago.
>
> That would explain why I had already forgotten about it. ;-)
>
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/2/585
Too bad because you added your own "tested-by"
in a reply. :p
> Unless you tell me otherwise, I assume that this means that you are
> OK with my adding your Signed-off-by to that patch. (The lack thereof
> being another reason I would not have queued it.) Please see below for
> the proposed commit log and Signed-off-by.
>
> If you don't tell me otherwise, I will submit this to the next merge
> window.
Swell.
I still think the concept is pretty useless and it's
just a duplication of "M:", which isn't anything other
than a list of who should be sent patches.
MAINTAINERS describes the "M:" letter as just:
M: Mail patches to: FullName <address@domain>
It doesn't describe anything like a pull hierarchy
or even describe actual maintainership.
But if "R:" is going to go in, then get_maintainers
should be updated at the same time.
btw: most "M:" entries aren't actual maintainers.
Maybe those non-maintainer "M:" entries should be
converted to the "R:" category and "M:" should
only be used to describe for the pull hierarchy.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
