On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 06:30:02PM +0000, Nick Alcock wrote: > On 3 Mar 2023, Mark Brown outgrape: > > on. If there are no strong interdependencies then it's generally > > simplest to just send the patches separately to avoid any > > possible confusion. > The cover letter was sent to every related mailing list (or at least it > was for patch series 2 and 5+: scripting problems blocked 3 and 4, > sorry), which is what the LWN article on big patch series which I'm > following recommended: <https://lwn.net/Articles/585782/>. I didn't want > to spam actual maintainers with more info than that, since presumably > they follow related-according-to-maintainer.pl lists anyway. > As for copying everyone on a 121-patch monster like this... well, I > think everyone would have wanted to throttle me, and I'm not sure they'd > have been wrong. So given that there's no depenencies between the patches this seems like a good candidate for not sending as a series in the first place. > I don't think anyone has previously suggested making it 121 individual > patches with no cover letter whatsoever. As it is, those series that > accidentally went out without cover letters properly Cc:ed confused some > maintainers because of the lack of the cover letter. My apologies. It's really quite common for people to just send lots of individual patches when there's no interdependencies - a lot of the generated cleanups do that. > It does seem this is an area where I can't please everyone. Some people > don't want to be Cc:ed, others want everyone Cc:ed on all of them: some > people want series, others want individual patches for everyone. I can't > do both. Sorry about that. The important thing isn't so much the specific thing as making it clear what's going on - if you send a series with no information about the how the series should be handled it's unclear what's going on.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
