[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8042912e-23a8-d32e-1aae-fb766ecb865a@linaro.org>
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists