Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: only use THE REST as a fallback

[Matthieu Baerts]

Hi Konstantin,

On 08/10/2026 15:10, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2026 at 03:03:11PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2026 at 2:56 PM Konstantin Ryabitsev
>> <konstantin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> This issue came up during the 2026 Maintainer Summit and the consensus
>>> was that "always include linux-kernel for every patch" was never the
>>> intent.

Thank you for the patch!

>> Thanks for communicating this! I had always assumed the opposite,
>> based on what I saw happening. Glad it's been settled.
> 
> Note, that if we DO want to send all patches to a dedicated mailing list, this
> can be accommodated, too -- just not the list with 2100 subscribers (because
> it's not working). We have patches@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, which was originally set
> up as an archive-only dumping ground with no subscribers (by design).
> 
> If considered useful, I can update this patch to get us both worlds:
> 
> - THE REST actually works as a fallback
> - patches@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is included on all patches as an archival list

Is this list actively being used? The risk I see with this list is
having someone sending a new version of an existing patch only to this
list: this version will then be picked by tools like b4. If the
maintainer doesn't pay attention to the info messages, a wrong version
might be applied instead. Maybe b4 should catch such patches?

Or would this be required because some subsystem ML's are not on lore?

Cheers,
Matt
-- 
Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.