On Thu, Oct 05, 2023, Paul Durrant wrote: > On 04/10/2023 19:30, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2023, Paul Durrant wrote: > > > --- > > > Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: x86@xxxxxxxxxx > > > > If you're going to manually Cc folks, put the Cc's in the changelog proper so that > > there's a record of who was Cc'd on the patch. > > > > FTR, the basic list was generated: > > ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --no-rolestats > 0001-KVM-xen-ignore-the-VCPU_SSHOTTMR_future-flag.patch | while read line; > do echo Cc: $line; done > > and then lightly hacked put x86 at the end and remove my own name... so not > really manual. > Also not entirely sure why you'd want the Cc list making it into the actual > commit. It's useful for Cc's that *don't* come from get_maintainers, as it provides a record in the commit of who was Cc'd on a patch. E.g. if someone encounters an issue with a commit, the Cc records provide additional contacts that might be able to help sort things out. Or if a maintainer further up the stream has questions or concerns about a pull request, they can use the Cc list to grab the right audience for a discussion, or be more confident in merging the request because the maintainer knows that the "right" people at least saw the patch. Lore links provide much of that functionality, but following a link is almost always slower, and some maintainers are allergic to web browsers :-) > > Or even better, just use scripts/get_maintainers.pl and only manually Cc people > > when necessary. > > I guess this must be some other way of using get_maintainers.pl that you are > expecting? Ah, I was just assuming that you were handcoding the Cc "list", but it sounds like you're piping the results into each patch. That's fine, just a bit noisy and uncommon. FWIW, my scripts gather the To/Cc for all patches in a series, and then use the results for the entire series, e.g. git send-email --confirm=always --suppress-cc=all $to $bcc $cc ... That way everyone that gets sent mail gets all patches in a series. Most contributors, myself included, don't like to receive bits and pieces of a series, e.g. it makes doing quick triage/reviews annoying, especially if the patches I didn't receive weren't sent to any of the mailing list to which I'm subscribed.
