Date:   Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:17:43 +0100
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>,
        Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@...com>, Keerthy <j-keerthy@...com>,
        tony@...mide.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        russ.dill@...com, robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com
Subject: Re: Applied "mfd: tps65218: add version check to the PMIC probe" to
 the regulator tree

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 09:18:34AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 09:31:14AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The patch
> > > > 
> > > >    mfd: tps65218: add version check to the PMIC probe
> > > 
> > > Why did you take this patch?
> > 
> > I think folk need to start to understand the purpose of the To: and Cc:
> > lines in emails.
> > 
> > To: means you're sending the message _to_ the recipient, expecting them
> > to be the _primary_ receiver of the message, and to _process_ the message
> > in some way.  In the case of a patch, that may be applying the change.
> > 
> > Cc: means you're providing the recipient with a copy of the message, "for
> > their information" and you're not expecting them to take action.
> > 
> > If you think that there's no difference between To: and Cc: then ask
> > yourself this question: what's the point of having the two headers,
> > why not list all recipients under one single header.
> > 
> > Mark was in the To: line, therefore it is perfectly reasonable for him
> > to apply the patch when it gets acked, since the original author sent
> > it _TO_ Mark implicitly asking him to apply it.
> > 
> > If you have a problem with that, then you need to say something in
> > reply to the patch, or you need to instruct folk who send patches for
> > bits of your subsystem not to place others in the To: field who may
> > pick up the patch.
> 
> It's not up to submitters which repo patches get applied to.  They are
> free to make a verbal (written) request and if it's justified then we
> can choose to agree to it or not.

Wrong.  It's up to submitters to send TO the person who they want to
apply the patch - that's how it's always worked.

What's become broken is this idea of "I absolutely own this area of the
kernel, all patches _must_ come through me."  That's never been the case.

There may be a good reason why the submitter doesn't want the normal
maintainer of an area of the kernel to take the patch, in which case
the submitter has every right to decide who should take their patch.
The wrong maintainer taking the patch can screw up the submitters
workflow, cause additional conflicts, or break dependencies.  The
submitter is the best person to decide who should apply their change.

> I use the Mutt's default configuration for 'reply-to-all' in all
> cases.  I really don't have time to manually reorganise something as
> trivial as To: and Cc: lines.  I find them irrelevant in this
> setting.  Any time spent on trivial activities such as these adds
> further delay to patch-reviews.  Some of us have day jobs too you
> know. ;)

Exactly - some of us don't have a lot of time, and some of us don't
read messages that aren't sent either To or Cc'd to us.  Some of us
also place messages that are Cc'd at a _much_ lower priority than
those which are sent To them.

If people want me to take some action with their message, they had
better put me in the To: line and _not_ the Cc, otherwise they're
risking me ignoring them for a long time.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists