linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] docs: process: Send patches 'To' maintainers and 'Cc' lists

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]

Message-ID: <e8a932aa-25ad-65a5-913b-5d940be51218@infradead.org>
Date:   Sun, 4 Jun 2023 14:53:56 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>, James Seo <james@...iv.tech>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     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 6/4/23 07:01, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> On 6/3/23 22:14, James Seo wrote:
>> To reduce ambiguity and eliminate this class of potential (albeit
>> tangential) issues, prescribe sending patches 'To' maintainers and
>> 'Cc' lists. While we're at it, strengthen the recommendation to use
>> scripts/get_maintainer.pl to find patch recipients, and move Andrew
>> Morton's callout as the maintainer of last resort to the next
>> paragraph for better flow.
>>
> 
> IMO, To: and Cc: don't have any practical differences between two,
> and I usually do vice-versa when sending patches: lists are in To:
> and individual maintainers are in Cc:

Ack all of that.

-- 
~Randy