[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181227134055.GA2272@kadam>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 16:40:55 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Tom Psyborg <pozega.tomislav@...il.com>
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] drop useless LIST_HEAD
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:12:20PM +0100, Tom Psyborg wrote:
> there was discussion about this just some days ago. CC 4-5 lists is
> more than enough
>
I don't know who you were discussing this with...
You should CC the 0th patch to all the mailinglists. That much is a
clear rule.
For the rest, Julia's position is the more conservative one. I was in
a conversation in RL and they were like, "CC everyone for all the
patches". It depends on the context, of course. If the patches are
dependent on each other then you *have* to CC everyone for everything.
If we really have other clear rules, then it should be encoded into
get_maintainer.pl so that it's automatic.
My other question is why do the linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
people feel like they need to be CC'd about every driver??? I always
remove them from the CC list unless it's an arch/arm issue.
regards,
dan carpenter
PS: Please, no more top posting.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists