[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: correct entry for LVM

[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: correct entry for LVM

[Sudip Mukherjee]

The entry of dm-devel@redhat.com was duplicated and the duplicate entry
was marked as a Maintainer but it appears from the email address that it
is a List. So remove the entry of M and only keep the L entry.

Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@codethink.co.uk>
---
 MAINTAINERS | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 51891b2..1c32e82 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -3557,7 +3557,6 @@ S:	Maintained
 DEVICE-MAPPER  (LVM)
 M:	Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
 M:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
-M:	dm-devel@redhat.com
 L:	dm-devel@redhat.com
 W:	http://sources.redhat.com/dm
 Q:	http://patchwork.kernel.org/project/dm-devel/list/
-- 
1.9.1

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: correct entry for LVM

[Alasdair G Kergon]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 08:50:39PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> The entry of dm-devel@redhat.com was duplicated and the duplicate entry
> was marked as a Maintainer but it appears from the email address that it
> is a List. So remove the entry of M and only keep the L entry.
 
M and L are not mutually exclusive!

The definition of M is:
  M: Mail patches to: FullName <address@domain>
and since we want patches to be sent to the mailing list, this entry is correct
as it stands.

Alasdair

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: correct entry for LVM

[Sudip Mukherjee]

On Monday 11 April 2016 09:21 PM, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 08:50:39PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
>> The entry of dm-devel@redhat.com was duplicated and the duplicate entry
>> was marked as a Maintainer but it appears from the email address that it
>> is a List. So remove the entry of M and only keep the L entry.
>
> M and L are not mutually exclusive!
>
> The definition of M is:
>    M: Mail patches to: FullName <address@domain>
> and since we want patches to be sent to the mailing list, this entry is correct
> as it stands.

L stands for "Mailing list that is relevant to this area", and this is a 
mailing list. :)

regards
sudip

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: correct entry for LVM

[Alasdair G Kergon]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 09:45:01PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> L stands for "Mailing list that is relevant to this area", and this is a  
> mailing list. :)

Your proposed patch isn't changing the L entry, so this is of no relevance.

Alasdair

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: correct entry for LVM

[Sudip Mukherjee]

On Monday 11 April 2016 09:53 PM, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 09:45:01PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
>> L stands for "Mailing list that is relevant to this area", and this is a
>> mailing list. :)
>
> Your proposed patch isn't changing the L entry, so this is of no relevance.

Sorry, I am not understanding.

The current entry in MAINTAINERS is:
DEVICE-MAPPER  (LVM)
M:      Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
M:      Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
M:      dm-devel@redhat.com
L:      dm-devel@redhat.com
...

So my patch just removed the line : "M:      dm-devel@redhat.com"

So now the entry becomes :
DEVICE-MAPPER  (LVM)
M:      Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
M:      Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
L:      dm-devel@redhat.com
...

So, now it correctly shows dm-devel@redhat.com as a mailing list which 
should have cc to all the patches related to LVM.

Or am I understanding this wrong?

regards
sudip

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: correct entry for LVM

[Wols Lists]

On 11/04/16 17:39, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Monday 11 April 2016 09:53 PM, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 09:45:01PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
>>> L stands for "Mailing list that is relevant to this area", and this is a
>>> mailing list. :)
>>
>> Your proposed patch isn't changing the L entry, so this is of no
>> relevance.
> 
> Sorry, I am not understanding.
> 
> The current entry in MAINTAINERS is:
> DEVICE-MAPPER  (LVM)
> M:      Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
> M:      Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
> M:      dm-devel@redhat.com
> L:      dm-devel@redhat.com
> ...
> 
> So my patch just removed the line : "M:      dm-devel@redhat.com"
> 
> So now the entry becomes :
> DEVICE-MAPPER  (LVM)
> M:      Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
> M:      Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
> L:      dm-devel@redhat.com
> ...
> 
> So, now it correctly shows dm-devel@redhat.com as a mailing list which
> should have cc to all the patches related to LVM.
> 
> Or am I understanding this wrong?

Yes. Because (I guess M stands for maintainer) this list has maintainer
status. As all patches should be sent to the maintainers therefore all
patches should be sent to this list.

The same person can appear twice in a phone book, once under their name
and once under their job title. This is exactly the same situation -
this list should appear once as a list to tell people that it's a list,
AND ALSO as a maintainer to tell people that patches must be sent to the
list.

I guess English is not your first language, but the important point is
that M and L are not mutually exclusive.

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: correct entry for LVM

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2016-04-11 at 19:50 +0100, Wols Lists wrote:
> On 11/04/16 17:39, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > 
> > On Monday 11 April 2016 09:53 PM, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 09:45:01PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > L stands for "Mailing list that is relevant to this area", and this is a
> > > > mailing list. :)
> > > Your proposed patch isn't changing the L entry, so this is of no
> > > relevance.
> > Sorry, I am not understanding.
> > 
> > The current entry in MAINTAINERS is:
> > DEVICE-MAPPER  (LVM)
> > M:      Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
> > M:      Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
> > M:      dm-devel@redhat.com
> > L:      dm-devel@redhat.com
> > ...
> > 
> > So my patch just removed the line : "M:      dm-devel@redhat.com"
> > 
> > So now the entry becomes :
> > DEVICE-MAPPER  (LVM)
> > M:      Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
> > M:      Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
> > L:      dm-devel@redhat.com
> > ...
> > 
> > So, now it correctly shows dm-devel@redhat.com as a mailing list which
> > should have cc to all the patches related to LVM.
> > 
> > Or am I understanding this wrong?
> Yes. Because (I guess M stands for maintainer) this list has maintainer
> status. As all patches should be sent to the maintainers therefore all
> patches should be sent to this list.
> 
> The same person can appear twice in a phone book, once under their name
> and once under their job title. This is exactly the same situation -
> this list should appear once as a list to tell people that it's a list,
> AND ALSO as a maintainer to tell people that patches must be sent to the
> list.
> 
> I guess English is not your first language, but the important point is
> that M and L are not mutually exclusive.
> 
I'm a native English speaker and I think that's a not
a good argument.

Having the same entry for M: and L: where M: isn't an
actual person is not a great idea.

The list is not a maintainer.

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: correct entry for LVM

[Wols Lists]

On 11/04/16 22:08, Joe Perches wrote:
> I'm a native English speaker and I think that's a not
> a good argument.
> 
> Having the same entry for M: and L: where M: isn't an
> actual person is not a great idea.
> 
> The list is not a maintainer.
> 
> 
Depends on your definition of maintainer ...

To me, it means "should be notified of anything maintenance-related". By
that definition the list is a maintainer. And what do you do if you
don't have a person designated as maintainer? Do you send everything to
/dev/null?

A list is for general discussion, advice, whatever. Those two
definitions are not mutually exclusive, and therefore the list email
address may need to be identified as both/and, hence the two entries.

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: correct entry for LVM

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2016-04-11 at 23:25 +0100, Wols Lists wrote:
> On 11/04/16 22:08, Joe Perches wrote:
> > 
> > I'm a native English speaker and I think that's a not
> > a good argument.
> > 
> > Having the same entry for M: and L: where M: isn't an
> > actual person is not a great idea.
> > 
> > The list is not a maintainer.
> > 
> > 
> Depends on your definition of maintainer ...
> 
> To me, it means "should be notified of anything maintenance-related".

I think that's not a particularly good definition.
MAINTAINERS describes the M: entry as:

	M: Mail patches to: FullName <address@domain>

That _person_ is generally responsible for vetting patches
and bug fixing.

> By that definition the list is a maintainer.

Not given there's a specific L: entry that's described

	L: Mailing list that is relevant to this area

> And what do you do if you
> don't have a person designated as maintainer?

Then you don't have a maintainer

>  Do you send everything to /dev/null?

Patches are sent to lkml.

> A list is for general discussion, advice, whatever. Those two
> definitions are not mutually exclusive, and therefore the list email
> address may need to be identified as both/and, hence the two entries.

disagree.

cheers, Joe

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: correct entry for LVM

[Wols Lists]

On 12/04/16 00:03, Joe Perches wrote:
> I think that's not a particularly good definition.
> MAINTAINERS describes the M: entry as:
> 
> 	M: Mail patches to: FullName <address@domain>
> 
> That _person_ is generally responsible for vetting patches
> and bug fixing.

Ahh ... you are ASS U ME ing that it is a personal email address. Why?

And that person is going to get overwhelmed if the system is busy ...

I can't speak for anyone else, but if I were a maintainer I would more
consider myself an integrator. If patches are NOT sent to the list, then
there are two *likely* scenarios. Either

Good patches get dropped because there is no discussion, or

Bad patches get forwarded because there is no discussion.

(And on linux-raid, where I'm reading this, I think this is very much
the current state of affairs. Neil Brown has stepped down, and iirc the
person who has taken over actively wants the list to review things.)

You are assuming that "FullName" refers to a person. If I were a
maintainer I would personally be very upset with that state of affairs.
Why shouldn't "FullName" be the full name of a mailing list?

If I were a maintainer, it would be "not vetted by the mailing list? Not
going nowhere, nohow". Patches get sent to the mailing list, or they get
ignored.

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: correct entry for LVM

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2016-04-12 at 00:31 +0100, Wols Lists wrote:
> On 12/04/16 00:03, Joe Perches wrote:
> > 
> > I think that's not a particularly good definition.
> > MAINTAINERS describes the M: entry as:
> > 
> > 	M: Mail patches to: FullName <address@domain>
[]
> You are assuming that "FullName" refers to a person.

I wrote that line in MAINTAINERS, so I'm not assuming anything.

cheers, Joe

Re: MAINTAINERS: correct entry for LVM

[Mike Snitzer]

On Mon, Apr 11 2016 at 11:20am -0400,
Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> wrote:

> The entry of dm-devel@redhat.com was duplicated and the duplicate entry
> was marked as a Maintainer but it appears from the email address that it
> is a List. So remove the entry of M and only keep the L entry.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@codethink.co.uk>
> ---
>  MAINTAINERS | 1 -
>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 51891b2..1c32e82 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -3557,7 +3557,6 @@ S:	Maintained
>  DEVICE-MAPPER  (LVM)
>  M:	Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
>  M:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
> -M:	dm-devel@redhat.com
>  L:	dm-devel@redhat.com
>  W:	http://sources.redhat.com/dm
>  Q:	http://patchwork.kernel.org/project/dm-devel/list/
> -- 
> 1.9.1
> 

Nack.

DM isn't unique here.  XFS does the same thing:

XFS FILESYSTEM
P:      Silicon Graphics Inc
M:      Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
M:      xfs@oss.sgi.com
L:      xfs@oss.sgi.com
...

There really is more important stuff to deal with than bothering about
MAINTAINERS entries like this.  Please stop.

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: correct entry for LVM

[Sudip Mukherjee]

On Tuesday 12 April 2016 12:20 AM, Wols Lists wrote:
> On 11/04/16 17:39, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
>> On Monday 11 April 2016 09:53 PM, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 09:45:01PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
>>>> L stands for "Mailing list that is relevant to this area", and this is a
>>>> mailing list. :)
>>>
>>> Your proposed patch isn't changing the L entry, so this is of no
>>> relevance.
>>
>> Sorry, I am not understanding.
>>
>> The current entry in MAINTAINERS is:
>> DEVICE-MAPPER  (LVM)
>> M:      Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
>> M:      Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
>> M:      dm-devel@redhat.com
>> L:      dm-devel@redhat.com
>> ...
>>
>> So my patch just removed the line : "M:      dm-devel@redhat.com"
>>
>> So now the entry becomes :
>> DEVICE-MAPPER  (LVM)
>> M:      Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
>> M:      Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
>> L:      dm-devel@redhat.com
>> ...
>>
>> So, now it correctly shows dm-devel@redhat.com as a mailing list which
>> should have cc to all the patches related to LVM.
>>
>> Or am I understanding this wrong?
>
> Yes. Because (I guess M stands for maintainer) this list has maintainer
> status. As all patches should be sent to the maintainers therefore all
> patches should be sent to this list.
>
> The same person can appear twice in a phone book, once under their name
> and once under their job title. This is exactly the same situation -
> this list should appear once as a list to tell people that it's a list,
> AND ALSO as a maintainer to tell people that patches must be sent to the
> list.
>
> I guess English is not your first language, but the important point is
> that M and L are not mutually exclusive.

Don't worry, English is my first language. Have you tried with 
getmaintainer.pl and seen the result? It only shows dm-devel@redhat.com 
as a Maintainer and not as a list. (I noticed because I was sending a 
patch, and hence this patch again). But I believe a mailing list can not 
be a Maintainer ( have you seen any patch with a Signed-off-by: from a 
mailing list? ).
Anyway, I think this thread has become too long for an unimportant patch.

regards
sudip