On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 10:03:07AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 11/10/2023 09:30, David Marchand:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 6:26 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > In the contributor guide, it was said that no need to Cc maintainers
> > > for new additions, probably for new directories not having a maintainer.
> > > There is no harm, and it is a good habit, to always Cc maintainers.
> > >
> > > Remove this case as it can mislead to not Cc maintainers when needed.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> >
> > I agree Cc: maintainers should be the default / recommended way of
> > sending patches.
> >
> > Just to convince myself, adding some meson skeleton for a "plop"
> > library, adding an entry in the release notes and hooking in
> > lib/meson.build:
> > $ git show --stat
> > doc/guides/rel_notes/release_23_11.rst | 4 ++++
> > lib/meson.build | 1 +
> > lib/plop/meson.build | 2 ++
> >
> > $ ./devtools/get-maintainer.sh 0001-new-awesome-library.patch
> >
> > In this case, it translates to an empty To: list if you follow the
> > example command line:
> > git send-email --to-cmd ./devtools/get-maintainer.sh --cc
> > dev@dpdk.org 000*.patch
> >
> > We could add a default list of recipients if no maintainer is found by
> > the script.
> > And the next question is who should be in that list..
>
> Or we can send to dev@dpdk.org, Cc maintainers.
> This is what I do:
> git send-email --to dev@dpdk.org --cc-cmd devtools/get-maintainer.sh
>
+1 for this, mainly on the basis of it being what I do too! :-)
