Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Add a note that explains that Cc: email header is implied by other
> tags, such as Reviewed-by:. In this case an explicit Cc: is _not_
> needed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst | 4 +++-
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 5 ++++-
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
[..]
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> index 66029999b587..6775f0698136 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> @@ -486,7 +486,10 @@ provided such comments, you may optionally add a ``Cc:``
> tag to the patch.
> This is the only tag which might be added without an explicit action by the
> person it names - but it should indicate that this person was copied on the
> patch. This tag documents that potentially interested parties
> -have been included in the discussion.
> +have been included in the discussion. Note that other formal tags are
> +automatically converted to the Cc: email header and you do not need to
> +have an explicit ``Cc:`` tag, if the person is already mentioned by another
> +tag.
This just looks like a licsense to needle people that happen to ship a
duplicate tag. It does not feel like a net improvement to community
discourse.
Instead, one positive contribution in this area might be to patch "b4
am" to cleanup redundant tags when a Cc: is repeated by another tag.
For example:
b4 am 20231018115038.00004...@huawei.com
...could have elided the Cc: for Jonathan after applying his
Reviewed-by:.
