From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't send copies to the From: address Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:52:56 -0800 Message-ID: <20060211045256.GA23066@kroah.com> References: <11396260373307-git-send-email-cbiesinger@web.de> <7vk6c2sg66.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christian Biesinger , git@vger.kernel.org, Ryan Anderson X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Feb 11 05:53:42 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F7mlO-00089m-HA for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2006 05:53:39 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932249AbWBKEx0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:53:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932256AbWBKEx0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:53:26 -0500 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:48337 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932249AbWBKExZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:53:25 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.10] (dsl093-040-174.pdx1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.40.174]) (authenticated) by perch.kroah.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k1B4rIK15745; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:53:18 -0800 Received: from greg by echidna.kroah.org with local (masqmail 0.2.19) id 1F7mki-60B-00; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:52:56 -0800 To: Junio C Hamano Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vk6c2sg66.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 07:55:13PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Christian Biesinger writes: > > > Sending copies to the from address is pointless. > > Ryan, care to defend this part of the code? This behaviour > might have been inherited from Greg's original version. > > I cannot speak for Ryan or Greg, but I think the script > deliberately does this to support this workflow: > > (1) The original author sends in a patch to a subsystem > maintainer; > > (2) The subsystem maintainer applies the patch to her tree, > perhaps with her own sign-off and sign-offs by other people > collected from the list. She examines it and says this > patch is good; > > (3) The commit is formatted and sent to higher level of the > foodchain. The message is CC'ed to interested parties in > order to notify that the patch progressed in the > foodchain. > > Me, personally I do not like CC: to people on the signed-off-by > list, but dropping a note to From: person makes perfect sense to > me, if it is to notify the progress of the patch. Yes, they specifically should be notified of the progress of their patch. And I like the fact that everyone else on the signed-off-by chain also get's cc: too. It keeps everyone in the loop so they know what is going on. > What you are after _might_ be not CC'ing it if it was your own > patch. Maybe something like this would help, but even if that > is the case I suspect many people want to CC herself so it needs > to be an optional feature. Heh, getting a patch sent back to yourself this way is not a real big deal at all :) So, I really do not like this proposed patch at all. thanks, greg k-h