Re: [workflows]RFC: switching "THE REST" in MAINTAINERS away from linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Joe Perches
2023-11-08T19:14:50Z

On Wed, 2023-11-08 at 14:04 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2023 10:16:15 -0800
> Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2023-11-08 at 16:44 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 08:19:46AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2023-11-06 at 11:05 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > > Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > For this reason, I propose switching the "F: *" entry in MAINTAINERS
> > > > > > ("THE REST") to patches@lists.linux.dev instead. This list differs from LKML
> > > > > > in the following important aspects:
> > >
> > > > > As long as it doesn't affect those that have L: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > >
> > > > > All core kernel changes should still go there.
> > >
> > > > > (Scheduler, timing, tracing, interrupts, etc)
> > >
> > > > If this is done, perhaps half or more of the lkml
> > > > mailing list entries in MAINTAINERS should be removed.
> > >
> > > > This grep shows all the section entries with
> > > > L: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > > > most of which seem not "core".
> > >
> > > The suggestion wasn't to use LKML exclusively for core changs but rather
> > > to not have LKML added for everything that has a more specific list.
> >
> > Likely you and I read Steven's suggestion differently.
> > Perhaps Steven wants to clarify.
>
> Right. For example, I use linux-trace-kernel@ to add patches to patchwork,
> but I prefer the discussions to be done on LKML.

How would that work? Especially with get_maintainer?

Are people are supposed to start discussions on lkml but
only send patches to a separate list?

What linkage would you expect to offer between a discussion
and a proposed patch?

Subject matching? People adding Link: markings?

Both of those seem unlikely to be effective.