From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0028.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C40F70 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 07:34:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by smtpgrave03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF16181CB153 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 00:26:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omf11.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 944121800803F; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 00:26:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [HIDDEN] (Authenticated sender: joe@perches.com) by omf11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6434320A294; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 00:26:09 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches From: Joe Perches To: Thomas Gleixner , Steven Rostedt Cc: Mark Brown , Mike Rapoport , Leon Romanovsky , James Bottomley , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 17:26:08 -0700 In-Reply-To: <87tunyvt8h.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> References: <20210422124023.GD4572@sirena.org.uk> <20210422132339.GF4572@sirena.org.uk> <20210422111939.0c555039@gandalf.local.home> <875z0exbiq.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20210422173637.67354c26@gandalf.local.home> <87tunyvt8h.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.1-1 X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 6434320A294 X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.10 X-Stat-Signature: 4993ng1du1wcjtuxydfje4e88ojjb4hc X-Rspamd-Server: rspamout04 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Session-ID: U2FsdGVkX1/AqMf09iuNLJn8pb05hYfw9Fd6QAoXqAU= X-HE-Tag: 1619137569-214155 On Fri, 2021-04-23 at 00:39 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Another approach is to have quilt just save to a mbox, and modify that, and > > use another mail program to send that mbox. Which, if the cc list is long, won't let the cover letter be accepted and forwarded by some mailing lists. There are no great options for some treewide patch cases. A possible option would be to bcc individuals on the cover letter, and cc all the mailing lists, but in that case if an individual replies, only the lists would get the replies.