linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] Documentation/process: Be more explicit about who to mail on patch submission

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 4 Oct 2022 17:38:27 +0100
From:   Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
To:     Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net, linux@...mhuis.info,
        konstantin@...uxfoundation.org, krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, joe@...ches.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] Documentation/process: Be more explicit about who
 to mail on patch submission

On 04/10/2022 17:27, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> You are not _required_ to run get_maintainer to submit a patch, it is 
> simply _suggested_ so in my view the output of get_maintainer doesn't 
> negate the statement that you must mail at least one public mailing list.

And similarly, saying in a subsequent paragraph that you should always 
mail at last one public mailing list is unnecessarily disregarding 
information returned by get_maintainer.

get_maintainer produces a list of text that is very helpful to a 
developer in deciding where to send a patch. Documenting that output 
directly is a help.

But unless/until get_maintainer is _required_ to be run on any given 
patch, then we should still have a standalone paragraph which explicitly 
states a public mailing list must receive the patch.

---
bod