Re: [PATCH] pcmcia: add another ide-cs CF card id

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>]

On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 12:42 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 06:17 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 06:36:17PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > >>Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
> > > >>>commit 42935656914b813c99f91cbac421fe677a6f34ab
> > > >>>tree d37a0d20998f4d87a4bd014300f707c3852ef5f9
> > > >>>parent 82d56e6d2e616bee0e712330bad06b634f007a46
> > > >>>author David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:36:32 -0800
> > > >>>committer Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net> Wed, 01 Mar 2006 
> > > 
> > > >>Why was this not CC'd to the IDE maintainer, and linux-ide?
> > > 
> > > > For it is trivial, PCMCIA-related and my time is very limited these days.
> > > 
> > > That's pathetic.  You couldn't even CC linux-kernel on your answer.  And 
> > > this is not even the first or second time you've been asked to CC a 
> > > maintainer.
> > 
> > I personally don't consider that maintainers have a right to demand
> > CC's. Sure it's polite and good to CC them, but that's not the same as
> > having the right to demand this.
> 
> How do you expect the patch to be picked up, if you don't cc the
> maintainer? 

in this case brodo IS the ide-cs maintainer arguably ;)

but if you do a kernel wide change (say add a parameter to a function)
being forced to look up 5000 different maintainers is nonsense.
sure sending it to lkml and some bigger lists is good for that, but
still.