Messages in this thread | | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Date | Fri, 2 Mar 2018 10:53:07 -0800 | Subject | Re: [RESEND][PATCH] bug: Exclude non-BUG/WARN exceptions from report_bug() |
| |
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > > Resending through akpm since this technically isn't x86-specific.
Just a note on this part, because I think this is a general issue (and has nothing to do with the particular patch itself).
Saying who you expect things to go through can definitely be a good idea, because I generally ignore patches that get sent to me from people I take pull requests from - I assume that I'm on the participants list as a heads-up for for comments, rather than applying. In fact, even if you don't send me pull requests, that's generally what I assume, because the bulk of patches should be going through some submaintainer that _does_ send me pull requests (or, like Andrew, is known to send patches).
I'd expect that many other people face the same issue - particularly when a patch doesn't have a very clear area, and there are multiple people on the participants list, it's easy to assume that the intended target is "somebody else". I do not, for example, tend to look at my emails so closely that I care who is in the "To:" field, and who is in the "Cc:" fields. I'd have to be very curious indeed to care that deeply.
Which brings me to my point: maybe we should encourage people to make this "for whom the patch tolls" information more obvious and more explicit. It wasn't obvious in the first submission (yes, I saw the patch then too), and even in this second one I actually initially didn't notice this one line in between the commit message and the actual patch. Maybe I get too much email, but I bet _that_ is very true of others too.
The obvious place to encourage people to do it is in the [PATCH] part in the subject, ie something like [PATCH/mm] or similar if you expect it to go through Andrew's mm tree, or [PATCH/x86] it you expect the x86 maintainers to pick it up. Or [PATCH/linus] if it's something that you really expect to bypass all maintainers (why? I'd prefer for that to then be explained).
But maybe other potential patch recipients would hate that kind of extra mess in the subject line?
Linus
| |