Hi, On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 9:30 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 28/11/2022 16:51, Doug Anderson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 1:29 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>> 2. > >>> I notice Kryzysztof say he didn't in cc mail loop at beggin, and below is > >>> my updated mail list: > >>> --- > >>> Series-to: LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Series-cc: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Series-cc: Bob Moragues <moragues@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Series-cc: Harvey <hunge@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Series-cc: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Series-cc: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Series-cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> Is there anyone I missed? > >> > >> These are not correct addresses and not complete list of them. Don't > >> invent the entries, don't add there some weird addresses. > >> > >> Use get_maintainers.pl. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. > > > > Just to give context here, I think Owen is using `patman` [0] to send > > patches. Yes, it's part of the u-boot tree but it's designed for > > sending Linux patches too. > > > > By default, that means that get_maintainer is automatically called on > > all patches and those entries are CCed. The extra "Series-cc" just > > lets you add extra people. It's fine to add extra people to patches if > > you think that those people are interested in getting it. > > The tool is just the tool, if it uses get_maintainers.pl, then result > would be correct. The problem was that CC list on v1 and v2: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20221117094251.2.Ibfc4751e4ba044d1caa1f88a16015e7c45c7db65@changeid/ > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20221122203635.v2.1.Ie05fd439d0b271b927acb25c2a6e41af7a927e90@changeid/ > > As you can notice there easily: > 1. Bjorn's address is wrong > 2. My and Konrad's are missing > > So if you say that get_maintainers.pl were used and tree is not v5.15, > then what else? Certainly on v1 and v2 he was targeting v5.15, not upstream. When I replied to v1 I told him this. Apparently he messed up still on v2. Matthias again pointed it out on v2. After v2, it was corrected. ...so right, you didn't get v1 and v2 and those of us on the email thread pointed that out and it got corrected. I'm not sure what happened to v3, but that seems like yet another mistake and I believe Matthias also commented on this. Here we're on v4 which is correctly tagged as v4 and sent (as far as I can tell) mostly correctly. It makes sense that you're surprised that v4 came without you seeing earlier versions, but given that the error had already been identified and corrected (which is why you got v4 at all) then I don't think we need to keep debugging it, right? -Doug
