Add file pattern to MAINTAINER entry
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <[email protected]>
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index f6b84d2..7f5b7c2 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -3599,6 +3599,7 @@ P: Don Fry
M: [email protected]
L: [email protected]
S: Maintained
+F: drivers/net/pcnet32.c
PER-TASK DELAY ACCOUNTING
P: Shailabh Nagar
Ok, 374 patches is just rediculious.
So many patches eats up an enormous amount of mailing list resources,
and for these patches in particular there are few reasons to split
them up at all. The fact that the split up landed you at 300+ patches
is a very good indication of that.
On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 23:36 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> Ok, 374 patches is just rediculious.
>
> So many patches eats up an enormous amount of mailing list resources,
> and for these patches in particular there are few reasons to split
> them up at all. The fact that the split up landed you at 300+ patches
> is a very good indication of that.
More than ridiculous. Completely agree.
I tried to send 1 patch over the last couple of days.
Unfortunately, it's > 100KB and disappears into the void.
How about 10 patches or so?
What about maintainer sign offs?
Personally, I don't think it's necessary, but for
the subsystem maintainers like you, if or when the
get_maintainers.pl get integrated into patch
generation mechanisms, you might get more emails.
Perhaps more than you want.
Suggestions?
One good thing by emailing all the listed maintainers,
I've gotten several bounces for invalid addresses.
On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 11:46:49PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 23:36 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > Ok, 374 patches is just rediculious.
> >
> > So many patches eats up an enormous amount of mailing list resources,
> > and for these patches in particular there are few reasons to split
> > them up at all. The fact that the split up landed you at 300+ patches
> > is a very good indication of that.
>
> More than ridiculous. Completely agree.
>
> I tried to send 1 patch over the last couple of days.
> Unfortunately, it's > 100KB and disappears into the void.
So put it on anonftp/webpage/git tree and post the URI, damnit.
Of all ridiculous reasons for a mailbomb...
From: Joe Perches <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:46:49 -0700
> I tried to send 1 patch over the last couple of days.
> Unfortunately, it's > 100KB and disappears into the void.
The posting limit is 400K for linux-kernel, netdev, and one
or two of the other lists.
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 00:18 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> The posting limit is 400K for linux-kernel, netdev, and one
> or two of the other lists.
Apologies. Posted it twice over 2 days.
Anyway, I supposed you could kill the spool entries if you want.
cheers, Joe
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, David Miller wrote:
> Ok, 374 patches is just rediculious.
> So many patches eats up an enormous amount of mailing list resources,
> and for these patches in particular there are few reasons to split them
> up at all. The fact that the split up landed you at 300+ patches is a
> very good indication of that.
Actually, I can see 546 patches up to now. Horrid.
Besides that, it's very unfortunate that every single mail of this
ridiculously huuuuge patch series starts a new thread (no 'References' or
'In-Reply-To' header), so it's not possible to nuke it at once in an usual
way.
--
Jiri Kosina
Am Montag 13 August 2007 09:18 schrieb Al Viro:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 11:46:49PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 23:36 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > > Ok, 374 patches is just rediculious.
> > >
> > > So many patches eats up an enormous amount of mailing list resources,
> > > and for these patches in particular there are few reasons to split
> > > them up at all. The fact that the split up landed you at 300+ patches
> > > is a very good indication of that.
> >
> > More than ridiculous. Completely agree.
> >
> > I tried to send 1 patch over the last couple of days.
> > Unfortunately, it's > 100KB and disappears into the void.
>
> So put it on anonftp/webpage/git tree and post the URI, damnit.
> Of all ridiculous reasons for a mailbomb...
Or make it 3 or 4 or even 40 patches, but not 500.
Hans
On Aug 13 2007 14:08, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, David Miller wrote:
>
>> Ok, 374 patches is just rediculious.
>> So many patches eats up an enormous amount of mailing list resources,
>> and for these patches in particular there are few reasons to split them
>> up at all. The fact that the split up landed you at 300+ patches is a
>> very good indication of that.
>
>Actually, I can see 546 patches up to now. Horrid.
>
>Besides that, it's very unfortunate that every single mail of this
>ridiculously huuuuge patch series starts a new thread (no 'References' or
>'In-Reply-To' header), so it's not possible to nuke it at once in an usual
>way.
Pine:
; t s MAINTAINERS <enter> a d x
and it's all gone ;-) though.. it does not cover for replies trickling in
later. Granted, ^D to delete the whole thread (if there was one)
would have been easier.
Jan
--