On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 05:51:45AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 01:44:49PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 05:23:44AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 06:51:37PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > If I do that then half the mailing lists bounce them for having too > > > > many recipients. b4 can fetch the entire series for you if you've > > > > decided to break your email workflow. And yes, 0/30 was bcc'd to > > > > linux-xfs as well. > > > > > > I can't find it on linux-xfs still. And please just don't make up > > > your own workflow or require odd tools. > > > > You even quoted the bit where I explained that the workflow you insist I > > follow doesn't work. > > I've regularly sent series to more list than you'd need for 30 > patches even if they were entirely unrelated. But if they are > entirely unrelated it shouldn't be a series to start with.. One thing I didn't realize until willy pointed this out separately is that some of the list processing softwares will silently ignore an email if it has too many entries (~10) in the to/cc list, because spam heuristics. I think vger/linux.dev is fairly forgiving about that, but indie listservs might not be, and that adds friction to treewide changes. At least the whole series made it to fsdevel, but fsdevel is such a firehose now that I can't keep up with it. It's too bad that linux-xfs can't simply mirror patchsets sent to mm/fsdevel with "xfs:" in the title, and then I wouldn't have to look at the firehose. All I'm really trying to say is, patchbombs are crap for collaboration. --D
