Add a note that explains that Cc: email header is implied by other
tags, such as Reviewed-by:. In this case an explicit Cc: is _not_
needed.
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst | 4 +++-
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 5 ++++-
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst b/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst
index de4edd42d5c0..90a7fe2a85f2 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst
@@ -267,7 +267,9 @@ The tags in common use are:
being reported.
- Cc: the named person received a copy of the patch and had the
- opportunity to comment on it.
+ opportunity to comment on it. Note that other formal tags are automatically
+ converted to the ``Cc:`` email header and you do not need to have an
+ explicit Cc: tag, if the person is already mentioned by another tag.
Be careful in the addition of tags to your patches, as only Cc: is appropriate
for addition without the explicit permission of the person named; using
diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
index 66029999b587..6775f0698136 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
@@ -486,7 +486,10 @@ provided such comments, you may optionally add a ``Cc:`` tag to the patch.
This is the only tag which might be added without an explicit action by the
person it names - but it should indicate that this person was copied on the
patch. This tag documents that potentially interested parties
-have been included in the discussion.
+have been included in the discussion. Note that other formal tags are
+automatically converted to the Cc: email header and you do not need to
+have an explicit ``Cc:`` tag, if the person is already mentioned by another
+tag.
Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by multiple developers;
it is used to give attribution to co-authors (in addition to the author
--
2.43.0.rc1.1336.g36b5255a03ac
Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Add a note that explains that Cc: email header is implied by other
> tags, such as Reviewed-by:. In this case an explicit Cc: is _not_
> needed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst | 4 +++-
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 5 ++++-
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
[..]
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> index 66029999b587..6775f0698136 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> @@ -486,7 +486,10 @@ provided such comments, you may optionally add a ``Cc:`` tag to the patch.
> This is the only tag which might be added without an explicit action by the
> person it names - but it should indicate that this person was copied on the
> patch. This tag documents that potentially interested parties
> -have been included in the discussion.
> +have been included in the discussion. Note that other formal tags are
> +automatically converted to the Cc: email header and you do not need to
> +have an explicit ``Cc:`` tag, if the person is already mentioned by another
> +tag.
This just looks like a licsense to needle people that happen to ship a
duplicate tag. It does not feel like a net improvement to community
discourse.
Instead, one positive contribution in this area might be to patch "b4
am" to cleanup redundant tags when a Cc: is repeated by another tag.
For example:
b4 am [email protected]
..could have elided the Cc: for Jonathan after applying his
Reviewed-by:.
On 23/04/2024 15:19, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Add a note that explains that Cc: email header is implied by other
> tags, such as Reviewed-by:. In this case an explicit Cc: is _not_
> needed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst | 4 +++-
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 5 ++++-
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst b/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst
> index de4edd42d5c0..90a7fe2a85f2 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst
> @@ -267,7 +267,9 @@ The tags in common use are:
> being reported.
>
> - Cc: the named person received a copy of the patch and had the
> - opportunity to comment on it.
> + opportunity to comment on it. Note that other formal tags are automatically
> + converted to the ``Cc:`` email header and you do not need to have an
> + explicit Cc: tag, if the person is already mentioned by another tag.
>
> Be careful in the addition of tags to your patches, as only Cc: is appropriate
> for addition without the explicit permission of the person named; using
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> index 66029999b587..6775f0698136 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> @@ -486,7 +486,10 @@ provided such comments, you may optionally add a ``Cc:`` tag to the patch.
> This is the only tag which might be added without an explicit action by the
> person it names - but it should indicate that this person was copied on the
> patch. This tag documents that potentially interested parties
> -have been included in the discussion.
> +have been included in the discussion. Note that other formal tags are
> +automatically converted to the Cc: email header and you do not need to
> +have an explicit ``Cc:`` tag, if the person is already mentioned by another
> +tag.
It depends on the tool. b4 and git-send-email do it, but other might not
(e.g. quilt?). Anyway, to me this is obvious and submitting-patches is
already way too long, so I would just keep it in the "5.Posting", but
not here.
Best regards,
Krzysztof