On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 02:42:05PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 05.09.24 14:36, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 01:08:35PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > On 05.09.24 12:56, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 04:58:20PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > > > > Huang, Ying wrote: > > > > > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: [..] > > > > > > > You may move Cc list after '---', so it won't unnecessarily pollute the commit > > > > > > > message. > > > > > > > > > > > > Emm... It appears that it's a common practice to include "Cc" in the > > > > > > commit log. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, just ignore this feedback, it goes against common practice. Cc list > > > > > as is looks sane to me. > > > > > > > > It seems nobody can give technical arguments why it's better than just keeping > > > > them outside of the commit message. Mantra "common practice" nowadays is > > > > questionable. > > > > > > Just look at how patches look like in the git tree that Andrew picks up. > > > (IIRC, he adds a bunch of CCs himself that are not even part of the original > > > patch). > > > > I know that and it's historical, he has a lot of the scripts that work and when > > he moved to the Git it was another long story. Now you even can see how he uses > > Git in his quilt approach. So, it's an exceptional and not usual workflow, hence > > bad example. Try again :-) > > Point is, it doesn't matter what we do in this patch here if Andrew will > unify it at all. Point is, that this is exceptional. And better to teach people based on better practices, no? > > > Having in the git tree who was actually involved/CCed can be quite valuable. > > > More helpful than get_maintainers.pl sometimes. > > > > First of all, there is no guarantee they _were_ involved. From this perspective > > having Link: tag instead has much more value and supports my side of arguments. > > Link is certainly preferable. Usually when I fix a commit, I make sure to CC > the people that are listed for the patch, because it at least should have > ended up in their mailbox. > > Often, it also helped to see if a buggy commit was at least CCed to the > right persons without digging through mailing list archives. How is it better than having it in lore.kernel.org in archives where you even see who _actually_ participated in discussion, if any? Again, Cc neither in the Git commit, nor in the email guarantees the people were involved. Having Cc in the commit just a big noise that pollutes it. Especially I do not understand at all Cc: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxx cases. They are not people, they have a lot of archives besides lore.kernel.org, only waste of resources in all means of that. I tried to summarize that in the submitted patches to the documentation, that I referred earlier in this thread to. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
