On 28/08/2023 21:41, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 07:59:54PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 28/08/2023 19:56, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: > >>> Your function adds mailing lists also in "To:" which is not ideal, in my view. >>> You've mentioned before that To or Cc doesn't matter [1] which I disagree >>> with: it doesn't matter, why does Cc exist as a concept at all? > >> To/Cc does not matter when sending new patch, because maintainers know >> they are maintainers of which parts. I know what I handle. > > That might be true for you (and also is for me) but I know there are > people who pay attention to if they're in the To: for various reasons, I > gather it's mostly about triaging their emails and is especially likely > in cases where trees have overlaps in the code they cover. True, there can be cases where people pay attention to addresses of emails. Just like there are cases where people pay attention to "To/Cc" difference. In my short experience with a few patches sent, no one complained to me that I put him/her/they in "To" field of a patch instead of "Cc" (with remark to not spamming to much, so imagine I send a patch for regulator and DTS). Big, multi-subsystem patchsets are different case and this script does not solve it either. Anyway, if it is not ideal for Guru, I wonder how his LKML maintainer filters work that it is not ideal? What is exactly not ideal in maintainer workflow? Best regards, Krzysztof
