On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 09:31:14AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > The patch > > > > > > mfd: tps65218: add version check to the PMIC probe > > > > Why did you take this patch? > > I think folk need to start to understand the purpose of the To: and Cc: > lines in emails. > > To: means you're sending the message _to_ the recipient, expecting them > to be the _primary_ receiver of the message, and to _process_ the message > in some way. In the case of a patch, that may be applying the change. > > Cc: means you're providing the recipient with a copy of the message, "for > their information" and you're not expecting them to take action. > > If you think that there's no difference between To: and Cc: then ask > yourself this question: what's the point of having the two headers, > why not list all recipients under one single header. > > Mark was in the To: line, therefore it is perfectly reasonable for him > to apply the patch when it gets acked, since the original author sent > it _TO_ Mark implicitly asking him to apply it. > > If you have a problem with that, then you need to say something in > reply to the patch, or you need to instruct folk who send patches for > bits of your subsystem not to place others in the To: field who may > pick up the patch. It's not up to submitters which repo patches get applied to. They are free to make a verbal (written) request and if it's justified then we can choose to agree to it or not. For instance, a submitter is more likely to know if a dependency was recently taken in via a particular tree than a Maintainer, since it's almost impossible to keep track each and every patch and all it's possible dependants. I personally review/accept patches based solely on the subsystem(s) touched and the actions of particular Maintainers, knowing firstly how they operate. Actioning patches based on whether a contributor uses the To: or Cc: lines seems very fragile and prone to unnecessary complications. > However, there is a tendency with some people's mailers (including > yours) which keeps the recipients of the To: and Cc: from the message > being replied to, and copies them to the reply as-is. That totally > screws up the meaning of the To: and Cc: headers, and is really > really really really annoying for people who are in the To: field > but who aren't being asked to do anything in the replies. (Fix your > bloody mailer not to do this please!) I use the Mutt's default configuration for 'reply-to-all' in all cases. I really don't have time to manually reorganise something as trivial as To: and Cc: lines. I find them irrelevant in this setting. Any time spent on trivial activities such as these adds further delay to patch-reviews. Some of us have day jobs too you know. ;) -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
