linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] Documentation: process: Avoid unneeded Cc: tags

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: <6627ec1f71a4b_a96f294f1@dwillia2-mobl3.amr.corp.intel.com.notmuch>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 10:13:03 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	<workflows@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] Documentation: process: Avoid unneeded Cc: tags

Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Add a note that explains that  Cc: email header is implied by other
> tags, such as Reviewed-by:. In this case an explicit Cc: is _not_
> needed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst          | 4 +++-
>  Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 5 ++++-
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
[..]
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> index 66029999b587..6775f0698136 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> @@ -486,7 +486,10 @@ provided such comments, you may optionally add a ``Cc:`` tag to the patch.
>  This is the only tag which might be added without an explicit action by the
>  person it names - but it should indicate that this person was copied on the
>  patch.  This tag documents that potentially interested parties
> -have been included in the discussion.
> +have been included in the discussion. Note that other formal tags are
> +automatically converted to the Cc: email header and you do not need to
> +have an explicit ``Cc:`` tag, if the person is already mentioned by another
> +tag.

This just looks like a licsense to needle people that happen to ship a
duplicate tag. It does not feel like a net improvement to community
discourse.

Instead, one positive contribution in this area might be to patch "b4
am" to cleanup redundant tags when a Cc: is repeated by another tag.
For example:

    b4 am 20231018115038.0000433d@...wei.com

..could have elided the Cc: for Jonathan after applying his
Reviewed-by:.