Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] scripts: Add add-maintainer.py

From: Guru Das Srinagesh <quic_gurus@quicinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Nicolas Schier <nicolas@fjasle.eu>,
	"Konstantin Ryabitsev" <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>, <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	<quic_pkondeti@quicinc.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<kernel@quicinc.com>, <workflows@vger.kernel.org>,
	<tools@linux.kernel.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Guru Das Srinagesh" <quic_gurus@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] scripts: Add add-maintainer.py
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 16:16:39 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230829231638.GA27843@quicinc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <670a87e9-2f0c-ec9e-ebb4-9041c8972ace@linaro.org>

On Aug 28 2023 21:45, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/08/2023 21:41, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 07:59:54PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 28/08/2023 19:56, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> > 
> >>> Your function adds mailing lists also in "To:" which is not ideal, in my view.
> >>> You've mentioned before that To or Cc doesn't matter [1] which I disagree
> >>> with: it doesn't matter, why does Cc exist as a concept at all?
> > 
> >> To/Cc does not matter when sending new patch, because maintainers know
> >> they are maintainers of which parts. I know what I handle.
> > 
> > That might be true for you (and also is for me) but I know there are
> > people who pay attention to if they're in the To: for various reasons, I
> > gather it's mostly about triaging their emails and is especially likely
> > in cases where trees have overlaps in the code they cover.
> 
> True, there can be cases where people pay attention to addresses of
> emails. Just like there are cases where people pay attention to "To/Cc"
> difference.
> 
> In my short experience with a few patches sent, no one complained to me
> that I put him/her/they in "To" field of a patch instead of "Cc" (with
> remark to not spamming to much, so imagine I send a patch for regulator
> and DTS). Big, multi-subsystem patchsets are different case and this
> script does not solve it either.

Not sure what you mean by "does not solve it" - what is the problem being
referred to here?

In case of multi-subsystem patches in a series, the commit message of this
patch explains exactly the actions taken.

> Anyway, if it is not ideal for Guru, I wonder how his LKML maintainer
> filters work that it is not ideal? What is exactly not ideal in
> maintainer workflow?

I am not a maintainer - only an individual contributor - and as such, even
though I may get patches on files I've contributed to, I deeply appreciate the
distinction between being Cc-ed in a patch vs To-ed in one. The distinction
being that if I'm in "To:" I ascribe higher priority to it and lesser if I'm in
"Cc:".

If this script is accepted and gains adoption, maintainers like yourself will
only be To-ed in patches that touch files that you're a direct "Maintainer" or
"Reviewer" of. For all other patches in the series you'll be in "Cc:". I
imagine that this can be very useful regardless of the specifics of your
workflow.

Also, lists should just be in "Cc:" - that's just my personal preference, but
one that I'm sure others also share.

Guru Das.