> I actually don't think this is the point Junio was trying to make - > rather that you should not need to feel like you have to ask for our > permission to write this tool which can also stand alone and improve > your own workflow. Rather, if you do write it and you find it useful, > it'd be cool to see it sent to the mailing list alongside a cover > letter like "would anybody else find value in this? It improved my > workflow because <measurements/reasons>". > > Definitely I don't believe Junio's point was "don't send us this > patch, I don't care" - but rather "how do we know we care until we see > how you've implemented it". (One reinforcement here is his question > about where the Cc list is being queried from; local mbox vs. b4 vs. > using a direct clone from lore.kernel.org would definitely change who > this workflow will work well for.) My interpretation for Junio's comments were the same as your's. No hard feelings here. But, at the same time, Junio also said this: "FWIW, if you're only duplicating the To/Cc list of the previous round, then I do not need it, and I do not want to see anybody, including you, to be using it. To come up with a list of To/Cc addresses to use in v2, you should start from those who commented on v1, in addition to To/Cc used in v1, and then whittle it down." Which is exactly what I was doing here :). And now that I think about it, it does make sense.
