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.shevchenko@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/5.Posting.rst b/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst
index de4edd42d5c0..90a7fe2a85f2 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst
@@ -267,7 +267,9 @@ The tags in common use are:
    being reported.
 
  - Cc: the named person received a copy of the patch and had the
-   opportunity to comment on it.
+   opportunity to comment on it. 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.
 
 Be careful in the addition of tags to your patches, as only Cc: is appropriate
 for addition without the explicit permission of the person named; using
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.
 
 Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by multiple developers;
 it is used to give attribution to co-authors (in addition to the author
-- 
2.43.0.rc1.1336.g36b5255a03ac

On 23/04/2024 15:19, 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.shevchenko@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/5.Posting.rst b/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst
> index de4edd42d5c0..90a7fe2a85f2 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst
> @@ -267,7 +267,9 @@ The tags in common use are:
>     being reported.
>  
>   - Cc: the named person received a copy of the patch and had the
> -   opportunity to comment on it.
> +   opportunity to comment on it. 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.
>  
>  Be careful in the addition of tags to your patches, as only Cc: is appropriate
>  for addition without the explicit permission of the person named; using
> 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.

It depends on the tool. b4 and git-send-email do it, but other might not
(e.g. quilt?). Anyway, to me this is obvious and submitting-patches is
already way too long, so I would just keep it in the "5.Posting", but
not here.


Best regards,
Krzysztof

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.shevchenko@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 20231018115038.0000433d@Huawei.com

...could have elided the Cc: for Jonathan after applying his
Reviewed-by:.