On 24/07/2018, 13:00, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 24.07.18 at 13:48, <yuri.volchkov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In my personal opinion, just sending CI email as "reply-all" is fine. I
> do not mind having an extra email per patch in my mailbox.
This is exactly what I'm afraid of - when you're Cc-ed on a lot of
patches, you may then also get a lot of mails here. And no, other
than suggested elsewhere, I'm never going to have a rule to push
all mails matching certain criteria right into trash - there's always
the risk of a false positive. It is imo _always_ the sending side
which needs to judge who needs to be on the To/Cc lists of a mail,
never the receiving side to "paper over" mistakes the sender has
made.
I believe there is quite a bit of freedom on how we would implement this.
@Doug: please correct me if this is wrong.
For example: we could do something like the following
* Contributor sends series to xen-devel@ (or if necessary to some
alias or a different new list)
* Patchbot to take mail off list and run the tests
* Patchbot to augment the original mail(s) with embedded
test results and/or Tested-by: tags to and send it to xen-devel@
* Augmented mail to be sent to xen-devel@ as if it came from
sender - although this may cause problems with some mail
clients
Or we could push the burden onto the contributor, e.g.
* Contributor to send series to test service
* Contributor will get results (including some URL pointing to results)
* If succeeded or there is another good reason to send the series:
Contributor to send mail to xen-devel@ with a reference to the results
in the patch
