Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Apr 2024 10:13:03 -0700 | From | Dan Williams <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] Documentation: process: Avoid unneeded Cc: tags |
| |
Andy Shevchenko wrote: > Add a note that explains that Cc: email header is implied by other > tags, such as Reviewed-by:. In this case an explicit Cc: is _not_ > needed. > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > --- > Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst | 4 +++- > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 5 ++++- > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) [..] > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > index 66029999b587..6775f0698136 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > @@ -486,7 +486,10 @@ provided such comments, you may optionally add a ``Cc:`` tag to the patch. > This is the only tag which might be added without an explicit action by the > person it names - but it should indicate that this person was copied on the > patch. This tag documents that potentially interested parties > -have been included in the discussion. > +have been included in the discussion. Note that other formal tags are > +automatically converted to the Cc: email header and you do not need to > +have an explicit ``Cc:`` tag, if the person is already mentioned by another > +tag.
This just looks like a licsense to needle people that happen to ship a duplicate tag. It does not feel like a net improvement to community discourse.
Instead, one positive contribution in this area might be to patch "b4 am" to cleanup redundant tags when a Cc: is repeated by another tag. For example:
b4 am 20231018115038.0000433d@Huawei.com
..could have elided the Cc: for Jonathan after applying his Reviewed-by:.
| |