Received: by 2002:a05:6358:3188:b0:123:57c1:9b43 with SMTP id q8csp3677761rwd; Sat, 3 Jun 2023 09:34:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4ZTZUDJ+mhk9S7sLASwZmr8pAtML4b+J9jaQ5ShfUl3M3Am+q0EqQTmaFfTn6WouFDOmWV X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:e74f:b0:1b0:5c0a:3f80 with SMTP id p15-20020a170902e74f00b001b05c0a3f80mr3989836plf.44.1685810093200; Sat, 03 Jun 2023 09:34:53 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1685810093; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=B+2wdS6Lrfy0HEJy9dleQk5IgqNFAaxrwdSPdt88/m8b99XdZaOQlt2qQskLrlsyyz Rt8H5wqstnOyv113vuJHEEjRwx8Vp1t2daHTuoHtynfSxeRaybUeXXz8pwBRl/cWo5JJ cLYOH9Lcs0syEscevNyN0YXsnvJtVzCiscSfZygpy1tmRt2FezMvyRVQusC61blqwTz5 q8V8fDwvPwF/+K2I/CQbEzmsvukD6YkM+kobVh4zo1aHKFitbgNBWJH840CuFxgBny/m ocVJnm0RBwJdE4mss3Z33itZEV65k0eJZfdfSk1zFpXVv/lrwbMYuMQWnOMcuAFGs8A6 dLYA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=FWbnkvhy0haNqJf+0NWvNWwHoO1IoTkiAYopgDR8H+4=; b=dNk6pav75sukqlMxayZ3miJoizWTK23zXNJ2mzIf/9DcHQaiWtFvIRSUrVp6i6tl8I Oi3TnqrwWb+0ovcWICt2UUMhMN72garyQKcQOKEtTiQJ52vLXidJIe5pgnUSju11EjuA LNlXdc65oG+kwTcHMhbybtXEvfTQiozTYIrZvLdZ0j46MJxSpVZCjfwU3s9RV/1z0Eqn gTC0S2WJw2o3YuJGqmkywMNGgJ4uN4kBHUP8XklX/dUgwUyRylbYYe+/vcI41X9Xvaf/ +hZ5LxbketCvgCGZ4AfV1/Q3jg0WqRvq9GPcN0OeGloL0yAnGkAb1GHhZfTx4DXbzgHA eNfQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id d16-20020a170902aa9000b001ae3e5b31basi2734325plr.540.2023.06.03.09.34.37; Sat, 03 Jun 2023 09:34:53 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229524AbjFCQHf (ORCPT + 99 others); Sat, 3 Jun 2023 12:07:35 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45524 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229437AbjFCQHe (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Jun 2023 12:07:34 -0400 Received: from 1wt.eu (ded1.1wt.eu [163.172.96.212]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8202DBD for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2023 09:07:30 -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) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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