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;
Date:   Sun, 4 Jun 2023 11:26:44 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>, James Seo <james@equiv.tech>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>, 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: <20230604112644.49ac2035@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230603160659.GA5182@1wt.eu>
References: <20230603151447.29288-1-james@equiv.tech>
        <975d35cb-e0aa-8ea7-5520-238d1aa4cbaf@infradead.org>
        <20230603160659.GA5182@1wt.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 18:06:59 +0200 Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > 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.

It's useful when maintainer (or group thereof) who are expected to apply
the patch are in the To:
Who applies the patch is not information a noob may know but it may be
worth writing down as best practice?