Re: [PATCH v2 for Xen 4.6 0/4] Enabling XL to set per-VCPU parameters of a domain for RTDS scheduler

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>]

On 06/01/2015 10:06 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 01/06/15 09:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 01.06.15 at 10:50, <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>> On 06/01/2015 09:48 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2015-06-01 at 09:36 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>> Signed-off-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
>>>>> CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu@citrix.com>
>>>> Most people put the Cc about the cut (---) which is fine too. It means
>>>> the history ends up recording who was copied on the patch, which isn't
>>>> necessarily a bad thing.
>>> Right -- I would have thought that was useless information cluttering up
>>> the history, but I can see how it might actually be useful.  Should I
>>> start putting my CC's above the ---? :-)
>> And should I stop dropping them even when above the --- for
>> commit, which so far I've been doing as I don't consider this
>> particularly useful information (other then e.g. who might have
>> commented on a change without it being recorded in an Acked-by
>> or Reviewed-by tag)?
> 
> Is the CC list useful to keep in history? It ends up being the list of
> people who didn't respond to it before it got committed (or
> ignored/missed the email entirely).
> 
> It is the $FOO'd-by tags which are important when it comes to judging
> the acceptability of a patch.

OK, well that's 3 of us so far who think it's sort of useless, including
someone who things it's useless enough to spend the effort deleting
them.  Maybe we can leave the bike shed the color it is at the moment. ;-)

 -George