On 30/08/2023 01:16, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: > On Aug 28 2023 21:45, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 28/08/2023 21:41, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 07:59:54PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 28/08/2023 19:56, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: >>> >>>>> Your function adds mailing lists also in "To:" which is not ideal, in my view. >>>>> You've mentioned before that To or Cc doesn't matter [1] which I disagree >>>>> with: it doesn't matter, why does Cc exist as a concept at all? >>> >>>> To/Cc does not matter when sending new patch, because maintainers know >>>> they are maintainers of which parts. I know what I handle. >>> >>> That might be true for you (and also is for me) but I know there are >>> people who pay attention to if they're in the To: for various reasons, I >>> gather it's mostly about triaging their emails and is especially likely >>> in cases where trees have overlaps in the code they cover. >> >> True, there can be cases where people pay attention to addresses of >> emails. Just like there are cases where people pay attention to "To/Cc" >> difference. >> >> In my short experience with a few patches sent, no one complained to me >> that I put him/her/they in "To" field of a patch instead of "Cc" (with >> remark to not spamming to much, so imagine I send a patch for regulator >> and DTS). Big, multi-subsystem patchsets are different case and this >> script does not solve it either. > > Not sure what you mean by "does not solve it" - what is the problem being > referred to here? Exactly, no one even knows what problem you want to solve by swapping To-Cc between patches... > > In case of multi-subsystem patches in a series, the commit message of this > patch explains exactly the actions taken. > >> Anyway, if it is not ideal for Guru, I wonder how his LKML maintainer >> filters work that it is not ideal? What is exactly not ideal in >> maintainer workflow? > > I am not a maintainer - only an individual contributor - and as such, even > though I may get patches on files I've contributed to, I deeply appreciate the > distinction between being Cc-ed in a patch vs To-ed in one. The distinction > being that if I'm in "To:" I ascribe higher priority to it and lesser if I'm in > "Cc:". That's your feeling, quite subjective. I understand it comes from corporate world, but again... > > If this script is accepted and gains adoption, maintainers like yourself will > only be To-ed in patches that touch files that you're a direct "Maintainer" or > "Reviewer" of. It will not get traction because: 1. People should use b4, not this script. 2. Remaining people will just use get_maintainers.pl. 3. People cannot get right even basic commands, so we will never be able to rely on To or Cc distinction. I can give you example: my email address in get_maintainers.pl is a bit different. Does it matter? Often not. Entire bunch of folks were Ccing me on different address. Even though every tool told them not to... > For all other patches in the series you'll be in "Cc:". I > imagine that this can be very useful regardless of the specifics of your > workflow. Zero usefulness for me. Best regards, Krzysztof
