Re: [PATCH] pcmcia: add another ide-cs CF card id

[Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>]

On Thu, Mar 02 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 06:17 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 06:36:17PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > >>Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
> > >>>commit 42935656914b813c99f91cbac421fe677a6f34ab
> > >>>tree d37a0d20998f4d87a4bd014300f707c3852ef5f9
> > >>>parent 82d56e6d2e616bee0e712330bad06b634f007a46
> > >>>author David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:36:32 -0800
> > >>>committer Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net> Wed, 01 Mar 2006 
> > 
> > >>Why was this not CC'd to the IDE maintainer, and linux-ide?
> > 
> > > For it is trivial, PCMCIA-related and my time is very limited these days.
> > 
> > That's pathetic.  You couldn't even CC linux-kernel on your answer.  And 
> > this is not even the first or second time you've been asked to CC a 
> > maintainer.
> 
> I personally don't consider that maintainers have a right to demand
> CC's. Sure it's polite and good to CC them, but that's not the same as
> having the right to demand this.

How do you expect the patch to be picked up, if you don't cc the
maintainer? Looking up the maintainer is trivial. We can't always rely
on akpm forwarding patches, seems a lot saner to put the onus on the
submitter to make sure it gets to the right place.

Lack of time is really not an excuse. Looking up and cc'ing the
maintainer is certainly the least time consuming part of
producing/testing a patch.

-- 
Jens Axboe