From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 04:52:56 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't send copies to the From: address
Message-ID: <20060211045256.GA23066@kroah.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vk6c2sg66.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 07:55:13PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@web.de> writes:
> 
> > Sending copies to the from address is pointless.
> 
> Ryan, care to defend this part of the code?  This behaviour
> might have been inherited from Greg's original version.
> 
> I cannot speak for Ryan or Greg, but I think the script
> deliberately does this to support this workflow:
> 
>  (1) The original author sends in a patch to a subsystem
>      maintainer;
> 
>  (2) The subsystem maintainer applies the patch to her tree,
>      perhaps with her own sign-off and sign-offs by other people
>      collected from the list.  She examines it and says this
>      patch is good;
> 
>  (3) The commit is formatted and sent to higher level of the
>      foodchain.  The message is CC'ed to interested parties in
>      order to notify that the patch progressed in the
>      foodchain.
> 
> Me, personally I do not like CC: to people on the signed-off-by
> list, but dropping a note to From: person makes perfect sense to
> me, if it is to notify the progress of the patch.

Yes, they specifically should be notified of the progress of their
patch.  And I like the fact that everyone else on the signed-off-by
chain also get's cc: too.  It keeps everyone in the loop so they know
what is going on.

> What you are after _might_ be not CC'ing it if it was your own
> patch.  Maybe something like this would help, but even if that
> is the case I suspect many people want to CC herself so it needs
> to be an optional feature.

Heh, getting a patch sent back to yourself this way is not a real big
deal at all :)

So, I really do not like this proposed patch at all.

thanks,

greg k-h