On Aug 5, 2014 2:42 AM, "Markus Armbruster" <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru> writes: > > > 05.08.2014 08:41, Chen Gang wrote: > >> > >> Every members have their own tastes, and one working flow may be not > >> suitable for all members. I can understand, and hope other members > >> understand too. > >> > >> At least for me, next, I shall send patch to the members which I can get > >> from 'get_maintainers.pl' and only Cc to qemu-devel. And shall skip > >> qemu-trivial and Michael Tokarev. > > > > Why skip both? It's your call, but I'm curious. > > > > What I _think_ wrong is that get_maintainers.pl lists many random > > "patchers" for a given file by default. > > > > Besides, we should probably review role of Anthony Ligory, because > > he is returned as a sole contact for manu files, but apparently he > > does not reply to emails anymore. > > > > [] > >>>> I'm not sure how people treat these cases or deal with them. > >>>> We are subscribed to, in particular, qemu-devel@, and active > >>>> maintainers look there too, so receive more than one copy of > >>>> many emails. > >>> > >>> I believe fighting the established convention to copy is futile. I > >>> embrace it instead, and make it help me prioritize my reading. Copy me, > >>> and I'll at least skim cover letters and other thread-starters to > >>> determine whether I need to follow this thread. Don't copy me, and I'll > >>> at best glance at the subject in passing. > > > > We created some separate mailinglists - for example -trivial@ - especially > > to get such attention. This is what I'm talking about, in most part, > > because main qemu mailinglist traffic become quite a bit high to follow > > it closely, and it is a good idea indeed to Cc someone when sending mail > > to qemu-devel@. But even there, Cc'ing random "patchers" as get_maintainer.pl > > often suggests is _not_ a good idea. I think. > > I don't disagree with you there. I take get_maintainer.pl as advice, > not gospel. > > Note that because --git is *off* by default, you get "random patchers" > only when MAINTAINERS comes up empty. Which it does far too often, > because its coverage is lousy: some 1300 out of >3600 files. > > We could default --git-fallback to off to suppress "random patchers" > unless you ask for them. > > >>> Automatic filing into folders and marking copies so I don't have to mark > >>> them read twice helps. > >>> > >>> The additional traffic is a drop in a bucket. > > > > Which traffic you refer to as "additional"? The personal emails? > > The personal copies compared to the full list traffic. > > I count some 1200 messages to qemu-devel for the past week. 32 contain > the string "mjt@tls", which I take as a crude upper bound for you > getting a copy. I don't mean to say that's not annoying or a drain on > your time (who am I to judge?), just that the additional network traffic > over full qemu-devel delivery is negligible. > > > At least in my case it is quite significant because of qemu, and qemu > > is _far_ from a single project where I actively contributed. For example, > > I contributed many things to postfix, but I don't have to worry about > > it in any way, and I don't receive random personal emails - if something > > is being Cc'ed to me it really is something important. Ditto for linux > > kernel and other areas. > > I recommend to set up filters to file away list traffic and copies of > list traffic separately from your private e-mail. > > > In case of qemu, see -- for example, Anthony, who apparently stepped > > out from qemu. Almost every email on qemu-devel@ is being Cc'ed to > > him nowadays, so he receives _whole_ qemu-devel@ in his personal > > mailbox. > > I'd be surprised if he received copies in his personal inbox. I expect > him to file them smartly. > > > Is it also a drop in (his) bucket? > > I guess it is: 125 of last week's messages contain "aliguori@".
Good email clients can filter with complex rules. Just filter to:y...@mail.com and to:qemu-devel into a separate folder. And yes, 15 emails a day is a drop in the bucket...
