linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] scripts: Add add-maintainer.py

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: <20230829231638.GA27843@quicinc.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Aug 2023 16:16:39 -0700
From:   Guru Das Srinagesh <quic_gurus@...cinc.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
CC:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>,
        "Konstantin Ryabitsev" <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        <quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <kernel@...cinc.com>, <workflows@...r.kernel.org>,
        <tools@...ux.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Guru Das Srinagesh" <quic_gurus@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] scripts: Add add-maintainer.py

On Aug 28 2023 21:45, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/08/2023 21:41, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 07:59:54PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 28/08/2023 19:56, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> > 
> >>> Your function adds mailing lists also in "To:" which is not ideal, in my view.
> >>> You've mentioned before that To or Cc doesn't matter [1] which I disagree
> >>> with: it doesn't matter, why does Cc exist as a concept at all?
> > 
> >> To/Cc does not matter when sending new patch, because maintainers know
> >> they are maintainers of which parts. I know what I handle.
> > 
> > That might be true for you (and also is for me) but I know there are
> > people who pay attention to if they're in the To: for various reasons, I
> > gather it's mostly about triaging their emails and is especially likely
> > in cases where trees have overlaps in the code they cover.
> 
> True, there can be cases where people pay attention to addresses of
> emails. Just like there are cases where people pay attention to "To/Cc"
> difference.
> 
> In my short experience with a few patches sent, no one complained to me
> that I put him/her/they in "To" field of a patch instead of "Cc" (with
> remark to not spamming to much, so imagine I send a patch for regulator
> and DTS). Big, multi-subsystem patchsets are different case and this
> script does not solve it either.

Not sure what you mean by "does not solve it" - what is the problem being
referred to here?

In case of multi-subsystem patches in a series, the commit message of this
patch explains exactly the actions taken.

> Anyway, if it is not ideal for Guru, I wonder how his LKML maintainer
> filters work that it is not ideal? What is exactly not ideal in
> maintainer workflow?

I am not a maintainer - only an individual contributor - and as such, even
though I may get patches on files I've contributed to, I deeply appreciate the
distinction between being Cc-ed in a patch vs To-ed in one. The distinction
being that if I'm in "To:" I ascribe higher priority to it and lesser if I'm in
"Cc:".

If this script is accepted and gains adoption, maintainers like yourself will
only be To-ed in patches that touch files that you're a direct "Maintainer" or
"Reviewer" of. For all other patches in the series you'll be in "Cc:". I
imagine that this can be very useful regardless of the specifics of your
workflow.

Also, lists should just be in "Cc:" - that's just my personal preference, but
one that I'm sure others also share.

Guru Das.