On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 14:07:28 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 at 13:36, Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Just so I fully understand what you're saying - what do you expect me
to do? Send the developer a notifications saying "please repost" with
this CC list? How is that preferable to making them do it right the
first time?!  

Not at all.

The whole point is that you already end up relying on scripting to
notice that some people should be cc'd, so just add them
automatically.

Why would you

 (a) waste your own time asking the original developer to re-do his submission

 (b) ask the original developer to do something that clearly long-time
developers don't do

 (c) waste *everybody's* time re-submitting a change that was detected
automatically and could just have been done automatically in the first
place?

just make patchwork add the cc's automatically to the patch - and send
out emails to the people it added.

Patchwork already sends out emails for other things. Guess how I know?
Because I get the patchwork-bot emails all the time for things I have
been cc'd on.  Including, very much, the netdevbpf ones.

And people who don't want to be notified can already register with
patchwork to not be notified. It's right there in that

   Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
   https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html

footer.

So I would literally suggest you just stop asking people to do things
that automation CAN DO BETTER.

The patchwork notification could be just a small note (the same way
the pull request notes are) that point to the submission, and say
"your name has been added to the Cc for this patch because it claims
to fix something you authored or acked".

Lots of those will be false positives, and also I do not want 
to sign up to maintain a bot which actively bothers people.
And have every other subsystem replicate something of that nature.

Sidebar, but IMO we should work on lore to create a way to *subscribe*
to patches based on paths without running any local agents. But if I
can't explain how get_maintainers is misused I'm sure I'll have a lot
of luck explaining that one :D

See what I'm saying? Why are you wasting your time on this? Why are
you making new developers do pointless stuff that is better done by a
script, since you're just asking the developer to run a script in the
first place?

For the last time, most people already run get_maintainer, they just 
choose the wrong "mode" of running it for the use case.
I am not trying to make anyone do anything they aren't already doing.

You are just wasting literally EVERYBODY'S time with your workflow
rules. For no actual advantage, since the whole - and only - point of
this all was that it was scriptable, and is in fact already being
scripted, which is how you even notice the issue in the first place.

And it has nothing to do with *my* workflow. Unless you're arguing 
that asking for authors of patches which Fixes points to is part of
"my" workflow and nobody else's.

You seem to be just overly attached to having people waste their time
on running a script that you run automatically *anyway*, and make that
some "required thing for inexperienced developers".

I said "for the last time" so I won't repeat...

And it can't even be the right thing to do, when experienced
developers don't do it.

I explained to you already that Florian's posting is a PR.