Hi Jeroen, On 23/10/2014 23:17, Jeroen Hofstee wrote: > Hello Fabio, > > On 23-10-14 23:04, Fabio Estevam wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Jeroen Hofstee <jer...@myspectrum.nl> >> wrote: >>> Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.este...@freescale.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Jeroen Hofstee <jer...@myspectrum.nl> >> Acked-by: Fabio Estevam <fabio.este...@freescale.com> >> >> Please add Stefano on Cc next time. > > I would have normally, but get_maintainer instructed me > not to do so. Shouldn't it be adjusted then to include the > responsible custodian as well if that is what we want? >
Yes - it looks like that the script must be still adjusted. > Or should I use get_maintainer.pl differently? For the record, > I am not a linux developer, I don't know how the script is > commonly used. IMHO it is easier in the kernel, because each subsystem is isolated and has its own ML. On U-Boot, we are working together in the same ML and then we have to assign each single patch to the related custodian into patchork. Sending the patch directly in CC to the custodian helps this process. Regards, Stefano -- ===================================================================== DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-53 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: sba...@denx.de ===================================================================== _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
