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;
Message-ID: <10e68064-42a3-c80e-10cc-079a3cf4eb35@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 4 Jun 2023 21:01:29 +0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.2
Subject: Re: [RFC] docs: process: Send patches 'To' maintainers and 'Cc' lists
Content-Language: en-US
To:     James Seo <james@equiv.tech>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>, workflows@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230603151447.29288-1-james@equiv.tech>
From:   Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230603151447.29288-1-james@equiv.tech>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 6/3/23 22:14, James Seo wrote:
> 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.
> 

IMO, To: and Cc: don't have any practical differences between two,
and I usually do vice-versa when sending patches: lists are in To:
and individual maintainers are in Cc:

Thanks.

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara