On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 14:07:28 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 at 13:36, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Just so I fully understand what you're saying - what do you expect me > > to do? Send the developer a notifications saying "please repost" with > > this CC list? How is that preferable to making them do it right the > > first time?! > > Not at all. > > The whole point is that you already end up relying on scripting to > notice that some people should be cc'd, so just add them > automatically. > > Why would you > > (a) waste your own time asking the original developer to re-do his submission > > (b) ask the original developer to do something that clearly long-time > developers don't do > > (c) waste *everybody's* time re-submitting a change that was detected > automatically and could just have been done automatically in the first > place? > > just make patchwork add the cc's automatically to the patch - and send > out emails to the people it added. > > Patchwork already sends out emails for other things. Guess how I know? > Because I get the patchwork-bot emails all the time for things I have > been cc'd on. Including, very much, the netdevbpf ones. > > And people who don't want to be notified can already register with > patchwork to not be notified. It's right there in that > > Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot. > https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html > > footer. > > So I would literally suggest you just stop asking people to do things > that automation CAN DO BETTER. > > The patchwork notification could be just a small note (the same way > the pull request notes are) that point to the submission, and say > "your name has been added to the Cc for this patch because it claims > to fix something you authored or acked". Lots of those will be false positives, and also I do not want to sign up to maintain a bot which actively bothers people. And have every other subsystem replicate something of that nature. Sidebar, but IMO we should work on lore to create a way to *subscribe* to patches based on paths without running any local agents. But if I can't explain how get_maintainers is misused I'm sure I'll have a lot of luck explaining that one :D > See what I'm saying? Why are you wasting your time on this? Why are > you making new developers do pointless stuff that is better done by a > script, since you're just asking the developer to run a script in the > first place? For the last time, most people already run get_maintainer, they just choose the wrong "mode" of running it for the use case. I am not trying to make anyone do anything they aren't already doing. > You are just wasting literally EVERYBODY'S time with your workflow > rules. For no actual advantage, since the whole - and only - point of > this all was that it was scriptable, and is in fact already being > scripted, which is how you even notice the issue in the first place. And it has nothing to do with *my* workflow. Unless you're arguing that asking for authors of patches which Fixes points to is part of "my" workflow and nobody else's. > You seem to be just overly attached to having people waste their time > on running a script that you run automatically *anyway*, and make that > some "required thing for inexperienced developers". I said "for the last time" so I won't repeat... > And it can't even be the right thing to do, when experienced > developers don't do it. I explained to you already that Florian's posting is a PR.
