On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 02:48:04PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 02:00:12PM -0700, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 09:26:36PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:15:07PM -0700, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 02:47:03PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > > This is a giant CC list. > > > > > > > > Yes, this is because I received feedback [1] on an earlier patchset > > > > directing me to add the reviewers of patches to the cover letter as > > > > well so that they get some context for the patch. > > > > ... > > > > [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pwm/msg11735.html > > > > > > Strictly speaking I only asked for backlight maintainers to be Cc:ed. > > > I was fairly careful to be specific since I'm aware there are a variety > > > of differing habits when putting together the Cc: list for covering > > > letters. > > > > > > With the original patch header the purpose of the patch I was Cc:ed on > > > was impossible to determine without the covering letter. > > > > I suspect this might be the case for all the other reviewers as well - > > that they also would appreciate context for the specific patch they are > > being added to review. > > > > I wasn't entirely sure what the convention was, so I applied your > > suggestion to all the files. How do you suggest I handle this in my next > > patchset? I fully agree that such a large CC list does look really > > ungainly. > > IHMO there should not be a mechanical convention. Instead your goal > needs to be how to make it as easy as possible to review your patches. > > Think about it this way: Each person in the To: of a patch (and maybe > also Cc: depending on how you construct things) is a person you are > asking to review and comment on the patch. If that person will find it > easier to review the patch if they are included in the cover letter then > either they should be included or you should improve the patch > description of the patch itself (sometimes both). > > Either way it is about optimizing the patchset for readability. More > people read them than write them. Thank you for the explanation! I shall keep your suggestions in mind while sending out future patchsets. Thank you. Guru Das. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
