On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:30:23AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 16:09 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > and in practice doing so would make it even harder to work with > > than it is at the minute. > How? What is "it" here? linux-kernel, it's rather hig volume. > > In practice this is exactly what's been happening for years anyway so > > it's not something I'd expect to be controversial. > Perhaps the biggest benefit of cc'ing lkml is > a centralized repository of proposed patches in > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/LKML/list/ Which isn't triumphantly usable as a result. > Perhaps the best argument to cc lkml is still this: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/27/44 That's one of the reasons one might choose to CC lkml, yes. But equally well it doesn't need to be the default for everything and usually someone is watching the subsystem lists.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
|