From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40664C77B73 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2023 16:14:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229490AbjFCQOB (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Jun 2023 12:14:01 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46392 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229437AbjFCQOA (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Jun 2023 12:14:00 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 388 seconds by postgrey-1.37 at lindbergh.monkeyblade.net; Sat, 03 Jun 2023 09:13:59 PDT Received: from 1wt.eu (ded1.1wt.eu [163.172.96.212]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1137CA2; Sat, 3 Jun 2023 09:13:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 353G6xE1005188; Sat, 3 Jun 2023 18:06:59 +0200 Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2023 18:06:59 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Randy Dunlap Cc: James Seo , Jonathan Corbet , Kalle Valo , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] docs: process: Send patches 'To' maintainers and 'Cc' lists Message-ID: <20230603160659.GA5182@1wt.eu> References: <20230603151447.29288-1-james@equiv.tech> <975d35cb-e0aa-8ea7-5520-238d1aa4cbaf@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <975d35cb-e0aa-8ea7-5520-238d1aa4cbaf@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org Hi Randy, On Sat, Jun 03, 2023 at 08:55:39AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > It sounds to me like we should just prohibit (not allow) emails that > don't have a To: recipient in them. Also those without subjects, which seem to become increasingly frequent and which used to exclusively be used by spam years ago. > > To reduce ambiguity and eliminate this class of potential (albeit > > tangential) issues, prescribe sending patches 'To' maintainers and > > 'Cc' lists. While we're at it, strengthen the recommendation to use > > scripts/get_maintainer.pl to find patch recipients, and move Andrew > > Morton's callout as the maintainer of last resort to the next > > paragraph for better flow. > > > > 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. regards, Willy