David, On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 11:46:58AM -0700, David Matlack wrote: > On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 11:13 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2023, Oliver Upton wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 02:17:24AM +0000, Anish Moorthy wrote: > > > > Hi Sean, here's what I'm planing to send up as v2 of the scalable > > > > userfaultfd series. > > > > > > I don't see a ton of value in sending a targeted posting of a series to the > > > list. > > But isn't it already generating value as you were able to weigh in and > provide feedback on technical aspects that you would not have been > otherwise able to if Anish had just messaged Sean? No, I only happened upon this series looking at lore. My problem is that none of the affected maintainers or reviewers were cc'ed on the series. > > > IOW, just CC all of the appropriate reviewers+maintainers. I promise, > > > we won't bite. > > I disagree. While I think it's fine to reach out to someone off-list > to discuss a specific question, if you're going to message all > reviewers and maintainers, you should also CC the mailing list. That > allows more people to follow along and weigh in if necessary. I think there may be a slight disconnect here :) I'm in no way encouraging off-list discussion and instead asking that mail on the list arrives in the right folks' inboxes. Posting an RFC on the list was absolutely the right thing to do. > > > > +1. And though I discourage off-list review, if something is really truly not > > ready for public review, e.g. will do more harm than good by causing confusing, > > then just send the patches off-list. Half measures like this will just make folks > > grumpy. > > In this specific case, Anish very clearly laid out the reason for > sending the patches and asked very specific directed questions in the > cover letter and called it out as WIP. Yes "WIP" should have been > "RFC" but other than that should anything have been different? See above -- Thanks, Oliver
