Re: Applied "mfd: tps65218: add version check to the PMIC probe" to the regulator tree

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 09:31:14AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

The patch

   mfd: tps65218: add version check to the PMIC probe

Why did you take this patch?

I think folk need to start to understand the purpose of the To: and Cc:
lines in emails.

To: means you're sending the message _to_ the recipient, expecting them
to be the _primary_ receiver of the message, and to _process_ the message
in some way.  In the case of a patch, that may be applying the change.

Cc: means you're providing the recipient with a copy of the message, "for
their information" and you're not expecting them to take action.

If you think that there's no difference between To: and Cc: then ask
yourself this question: what's the point of having the two headers,
why not list all recipients under one single header.

Mark was in the To: line, therefore it is perfectly reasonable for him
to apply the patch when it gets acked, since the original author sent
it _TO_ Mark implicitly asking him to apply it.

If you have a problem with that, then you need to say something in
reply to the patch, or you need to instruct folk who send patches for
bits of your subsystem not to place others in the To: field who may
pick up the patch.

It's not up to submitters which repo patches get applied to.  They are
free to make a verbal (written) request and if it's justified then we
can choose to agree to it or not.  For instance, a submitter is more
likely to know if a dependency was recently taken in via a particular
tree than a Maintainer, since it's almost impossible to keep track
each and every patch and all it's possible dependants.

I personally review/accept patches based solely on the subsystem(s)
touched and the actions of particular Maintainers, knowing firstly how
they operate.  Actioning patches based on whether a contributor uses
the To: or Cc: lines seems very fragile and prone to unnecessary
complications.

However, there is a tendency with some people's mailers (including
yours) which keeps the recipients of the To: and Cc: from the message
being replied to, and copies them to the reply as-is.  That totally
screws up the meaning of the To: and Cc: headers, and is really
really really really annoying for people who are in the To: field
but who aren't being asked to do anything in the replies.  (Fix your
bloody mailer not to do this please!)

I use the Mutt's default configuration for 'reply-to-all' in all
cases.  I really don't have time to manually reorganise something as
trivial as To: and Cc: lines.  I find them irrelevant in this
setting.  Any time spent on trivial activities such as these adds
further delay to patch-reviews.  Some of us have day jobs too you
know. ;)

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog