Re: [PATCH v10 00/12] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64

[Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@codeaurora.org>]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 09:26:36PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:15:07PM -0700, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 02:47:03PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > This is a giant CC list.
> > 
> > Yes, this is because I received feedback [1] on an earlier patchset
> > directing me to add the reviewers of patches to the cover letter as
> > well so that they get some context for the patch.
> > ...
> > [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pwm/msg11735.html
> 
> Strictly speaking I only asked for backlight maintainers to be Cc:ed.
> I was fairly careful to be specific since I'm aware there are a variety
> of differing habits when putting together the Cc: list for covering
> letters.
> 
> With the original patch header the purpose of the patch I was Cc:ed on
> was impossible to determine without the covering letter.

I suspect this might be the case for all the other reviewers as well -
that they also would appreciate context for the specific patch they are
being added to review.

I wasn't entirely sure what the convention was, so I applied your
suggestion to all the files. How do you suggest I handle this in my next
patchset? I fully agree that such a large CC list does look really
ungainly.

Thank you.

Guru Das.