Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] Documentation: process: Recommend to put Cc: tags after cutter '---' line

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 08:13:37AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 04:19:38PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > The recommendation is based on the following rationale:
> > 
> > - it makes the commit messages much cleaner and easy to read, especially
> >   on the screens of the mobile devices;
> 
> Reading commits on a mobile device is not what kernel development is
> optimized for, sorry.

The commit messages not always for the kernel development, some people may read
them in order to understand code better or many other reasons. I.o.w. it's not
the point.

> > - it reduces resources (memory, time, energy) to retrieve all these
> >   headers, which are barely needed by a mere user, as for automation
> >   they will be still available via mail archives, such as
> >   https://lore.kernel.org, assuming the Link: or Message-ID tag is
> >   provided.
> > 
> > Let's be environment friendly and save the planet!
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst          | 4 ++++
> >  Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 5 +++++
> >  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> This breaks my existing workflow, sorry.  I can't track cc: below the
> --- line because obviously, git cuts that off.  So I put them above
> where git send-email can see them,

git send-email _sees_ them very well there.

> AND where git can handle them when I
> rebase/revise/etc.

> Also, as Jon points out, the "environmental" argument seems very odd,
> it's not like bits cost more to send around (they keep getting cheaper
> in power and money), and processing power is pretty constant for servers
> handling email, so I don't understand the power consumption argument.
> Without some sort of data to back that up, I'd be loath to repeat it.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko