From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753443AbZHMHoT (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2009 03:44:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752686AbZHMHoT (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2009 03:44:19 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:36127 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752055AbZHMHoS (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2009 03:44:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:38:34 +0100 From: Russell King - ARM Linux To: Joe Perches Cc: Pekka Enberg , Pavel Machek , Ben Dooks , linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, David John , Erik Mouw , kernel list , Andrew Morton , David Miller , Krzysztof Halasa Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add "L: linux-arm@vger.kernel.org" to ARM sections Message-ID: <20090813073834.GA4837@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1249563730.10297.13.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> <20090806133349.GF27773@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <1249568614.10297.20.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> <20090806150322.GX2080@trinity.fluff.org> <1249948147.8895.96.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> <20090812115520.GI24339@elf.ucw.cz> <20090812194838.GB12117@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <84144f020908121317g64551a2cu1b960f44ed5d0d9@mail.gmail.com> <20090812212502.GA24667@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <1250126332.14728.3.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1250126332.14728.3.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 06:18:52PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 22:25 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:17:54PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Russell King - ARM > > > Linux wrote: > > > > I haven't noticed a great rush of support for Joe's patch, which > > > > could mean that people here really aren't that bothered - maybe > > > > they just aren't "open list" zealots like some people seem to be. > > > > > > I for one support open lists because subscriber-only lists are a PITA > > > > Let me make this clear, yet again. The lists are *not* subscriber only > > lists. We do NOT reject non-subscriber posts for no reason what so ever > > (although it does seem to have happened, both Erik and myself both > > contend that we have never rejected a mailing intentionally without > > giving a reason - whether the original poster receives that reason is > > a function of how buggy mailman is.) > > Umm. (and I'd cc'd you about this privately _last week_) 1. I have no trace of that. Really. 2. Did you send it to only me or did also copy Erik?