Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sh-setup: Write a new require_clean_work_tree function

[Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>]

Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> Junio C Hamano writes:

>> Please don't do this in-body "Cc:"; it is meaningless.
>
> Oh. What I intended to say was that Matthieu reviewed my previous
> iteration- should I just put that information in the cover letter or
> is there some other notation I should use? I can't use "Reviewed-by"
> either because he only reviewed the previous iteration- not this one.

Some noise about Cc and Reviewed-by tags:

 - I have been using Cc lines in patches to say "I consider this
   person something of a maintainer of the subsystem in question
   and would be particularly interested in his or her opinion."
   The idea is that if the patch does not get acked and a Cc line
   remains, people can tell that from the log.  The benefits:

    1) I remember to cc them
    2) later it is easy to find who looks like a maintainer
    3) the lack of ack is more obvious

   Checking Linux's Documentation/SubmittingPatches, I find that
   that is a misuse on my part (sorry).  A person passing on a patch
   to Linus is rather supposed to _add_ a Cc line in the rare event
   that they want to explain that a certain person had an opportunity
   to comment but did not comment (so Linus can know about their
   indifference to the patch, I guess).

   Neither use is as important for git, where many people read the
   list so it is not as important to cc people to get proper review.

 - I also used to abuse Cc lines to fit in contact information for a
   person who helped me, until I learned to use Helped-by and similar
   neologisms for that.  Sorry.

 - Again from Documentation/SubmittingPatches, I learned a while ago
   that Reviewed-by, unlike Acked-by, can only be offered by the
   reviewer and means that she is satisfied that the patch is ready
   for application.

If you just want to credit Matthieu, I suppose it would make sense to
say "Thanks to Matthieu Moy for such-and-such" somewhere.