On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:18 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Joe Perches wrote: > > > This could have been done: > > > > > > $ git show 08a610d9ef5394525b0328da0162d7b58c982cc4 | ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --nogit | wc -l > > > 35 > > > > > > Even then, using 35 CCs is generally silly. > > > > > > It might make some sense for a cover letter and a > > > patch series where the series made tree-wide changes > > > in multiple directories. > > > > Probably not even then: When a single mail header gets too long, you usually land > > in some spam filter and get hate mail from the list owners. The lkml limit is 1024 > > characters (this may come from an official RFC, don't know), which is usually less > > than 35 recipients. > > Patches just shouldn't be this large. You want smaller patches for a lot > of reason. Take the BKL, would it have been acceptable to make all the > BKL changes in a single patch (and what would the CC have looked like)? > If you do anything remotely sophisticated then , from my perspective, a > tree wide patch just isn't going to work. That's why on occasions we do transgress the established process to accommodate such changes. Imagine just for a moment the patch that modified the interrupt callback prototype to remove the useless pt_regs argument. Obviously, it had to be done atomically to the _whole_ tree, and it was agreed that this patch was to be applied at the end of the merge window. But no one expected a single minute sending a CC to _all_ the driver authors. Nicolas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
