From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161502AbcHaR5y (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Aug 2016 13:57:54 -0400 Received: from pandora.armlinux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:48003 "EHLO pandora.armlinux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161266AbcHaR5u (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Aug 2016 13:57:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:57:01 +0100 From: Russell King - ARM Linux To: Lee Jones Cc: Mark Brown , Tero Kristo , Dave Gerlach , Keerthy , tony@atomide.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, russ.dill@ti.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com Subject: Re: Applied "mfd: tps65218: add version check to the PMIC probe" to the regulator tree Message-ID: <20160831175701.GA5783@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1466412218-5906-8-git-send-email-j-keerthy@ti.com> <20160831083114.GP10121@dell> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160831083114.GP10121@dell> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 09:31:14AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Mark Brown wrote: > > > The patch > > > > mfd: tps65218: add version check to the PMIC probe > > Why did you take this patch? I think folk need to start to understand the purpose of the To: and Cc: lines in emails. To: means you're sending the message _to_ the recipient, expecting them to be the _primary_ receiver of the message, and to _process_ the message in some way. In the case of a patch, that may be applying the change. Cc: means you're providing the recipient with a copy of the message, "for their information" and you're not expecting them to take action. If you think that there's no difference between To: and Cc: then ask yourself this question: what's the point of having the two headers, why not list all recipients under one single header. Mark was in the To: line, therefore it is perfectly reasonable for him to apply the patch when it gets acked, since the original author sent it _TO_ Mark implicitly asking him to apply it. If you have a problem with that, then you need to say something in reply to the patch, or you need to instruct folk who send patches for bits of your subsystem not to place others in the To: field who may pick up the patch. However, there is a tendency with some people's mailers (including yours) which keeps the recipients of the To: and Cc: from the message being replied to, and copies them to the reply as-is. That totally screws up the meaning of the To: and Cc: headers, and is really really really really annoying for people who are in the To: field but who aren't being asked to do anything in the replies. (Fix your bloody mailer not to do this please!) -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.