From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0208.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.208]) (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 1307970 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:06:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by smtpgrave08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0636182D3531 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:46:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omf19.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D125F837F24A; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:46:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [HIDDEN] (Authenticated sender: joe@perches.com) by omf19.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id AE0C820D75C; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:46:32 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <6c221d801c5a6834168207b5ccadc76ac432c766.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches From: Joe Perches To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Rob Herring Cc: Steven Rostedt , Leon Romanovsky , James Bottomley , ksummit@lists.linux.dev, tools@linux.kernel.org Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 23:46:31 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20210423080454.78f4f662@coco.lan> References: <20210422112001.22c64fe9@coco.lan> <20210422092916.556e5e50@gandalf.local.home> <20210423080454.78f4f662@coco.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.1-1 X-Mailing-List: tools@linux.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.10 X-Stat-Signature: 1apc666e8d56wix4xizysw8ar4pnpwxf X-Rspamd-Server: rspamout05 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: AE0C820D75C X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Session-ID: U2FsdGVkX19z9rxj/NFpYEhJkTt18towQQaVKevDE2o= X-HE-Tag: 1619160392-84300 On Fri, 2021-04-23 at 08:04 +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > I have a script to automate it, but I had to tweak it while handling > patches that cross a single subsystem boundaries, using git send-email > with the c/c list obtained from get_maintainers.pl. > > By default, the script adds all maintainers, reviewers and all mailing > lists to the cover letter, but that sometimes generate a cover letter > with 80+ c/c, which will be automatically rejected by anti-spam > measures and by mail servers. > > So, I played with two different alternatives: > > 1. At the beginning, I changed the script to c/c only the mailing lists, >    excluding maintainers/reviewers; > 2. As the feedback was not great, I changed the script to c/c only >    the maintainers, excluding mailing lists/reviewers. It seems that >    this worked better. > > I didn't try to play with bcc, as replying to it would not send > the replies to everyone. > > If you think it is worth, I could submit it to scripts/, but I > suspect we may need to adjust it to work with all maintainers' > workflows. I have a very similar script A portion of a cc script I use tests whether cc'ing the cover letter to all listed maintainers of a patch series creates a header of less than 512 chars and if so cc's all relevant maintainers, otherwise it just cc's the mailing lists. (Ingo didn't/doesn't want to receive any emails from me) $ cat ~/bin/remove_undesirable_emails.sh grep -vPi "(?:\bIngo\s+Molnar\b)" $ cat ~/bin/cc.sh #!/bin/bash opts="--nogit --nogit-fallback --norolestats" maint_file=$(mktemp -t XXXXXXXX.cc) if [[ $(basename $1) =~ ^0000- ]] ; then ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl $opts $(dirname $1)/* | \ ~/bin/remove_undesirable_emails.sh > $maint_file count=$(wc -c $maint_file | cut -f1 -d" ") if [[ $count -lt 512 ]] ; then cat $maint_file else ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -nom -nor $opts $(dirname $1)/* | \ ~/bin/remove_undesirable_emails.sh fi ...