Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 11:26:44AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 18:06:59 +0200 Willy Tarreau wrote: >> > > I think that is going overboard (too far). As long as a maintainer >> > > is a direct recipient of the email (patch), that should be sufficient. >> > >> > Or it could be simplified, saying that all those who are expected to >> > play a role on the patchset (review, test, merge etc) should be in the >> > 'To' field while those who might possibly be interested in having a >> > look are in 'Cc' (lists, other people having expressed interest in the >> > patchset, single-time contributors to the file being changed etc). It >> > could be hinted that usually people read mails sent to them faster than >> > those they're CCed. This implies that maintainers have to be in To and >> > lists in Cc. >> >> It's useful when maintainer (or group thereof) who are expected to apply >> the patch are in the To: >> Who applies the patch is not information a noob may know but it may be >> worth writing down as best practice? > > Note that some maintainers process pull requests from patchwork, not > from their mailbox, and prefer not to be aadressed in the To or CC > headers. I don't know how widespread that is. FWIW I belong to this group and prefer not be in To or Cc, I'll always check the patch from patchwork. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
