[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230604112644.49ac2035@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2023 11:26:44 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, James Seo <james@...iv.tech>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] docs: process: Send patches 'To' maintainers and 'Cc'
lists
On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 18:06:59 +0200 Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > I think that is going overboard (too far). As long as a maintainer
> > is a direct recipient of the email (patch), that should be sufficient.
>
> Or it could be simplified, saying that all those who are expected to
> play a role on the patchset (review, test, merge etc) should be in the
> 'To' field while those who might possibly be interested in having a
> look are in 'Cc' (lists, other people having expressed interest in the
> patchset, single-time contributors to the file being changed etc). It
> could be hinted that usually people read mails sent to them faster than
> those they're CCed. This implies that maintainers have to be in To and
> lists in Cc.
It's useful when maintainer (or group thereof) who are expected to apply
the patch are in the To:
Who applies the patch is not information a noob may know but it may be
worth writing down as best practice?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists