From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C04E32FA1 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 21:33:32 +0000 (UTC) From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1619127211; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=7iVccHs0YXvtA8/tSjg2q7pAxpeLlEl7T7skCk79LsY=; b=f5t/fskxsOaBJDgcaKVLyI5x/C9hKA9UB4KLUyXV6KbKAAX0Gd2j5ddbgX7jgSGOaSsC/W st3KMfEhbf+xSLwI1sIIe1p9/1aX76bRPqJIC8lp5QBekLGYOK20s5urlGU8GXQDX2LysE sEdnst5ZyYYGCxQ/ptIslmSzl1kW8okLG1EHnybT5p50KoNOVYfCi+xu5F/kg5IcCs93VH wMPn1g2MduVxzo2QnP2NaJY9cGHFlOz3x64VNZ8DnzwZugbQijGdZr1Gx36vrkDBeAPH+t vLTER7NT+UATvks9h1dycfl0bu2YJ0jlcG01VMu+vAz/WspV34OiknD11NhtDg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1619127211; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=7iVccHs0YXvtA8/tSjg2q7pAxpeLlEl7T7skCk79LsY=; b=4KdIvdnF6ytgVK+qz+wkeiYkkAd2xCD86aLhm556PxRVrH34byeA9WLiiWO3iso5Sdd8GD 91TRMvzDYErYQ+CQ== To: Sudip Mukherjee , Jiri Kosina Cc: Steven Rostedt , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , James Bottomley , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches In-Reply-To: References: <20210422123559.1dc647fb@coco.lan> <20210422100021.1a3f143c@gandalf.local.home> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 23:33:30 +0200 Message-ID: <87zgxqvwb9.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Thu, Apr 22 2021 at 16:31, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 3:07 PM Jiri Kosina wrote: >> >> On Thu, 22 Apr 2021, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> >> > > May I suggest that we have a separate tree for trivial patches like >> > > the trivial.git tree that Jiri has and all trivial patches goes >> > >> > Funny that you suggest something that we already have and you mention. Yes >> > Jiri had the trivial tree, but because it ends up being a lot of work, and >> > if the maintainer of that tree doesn't have the time to maintain it, it >> > becomes a dead end for those patches. >> > >> > It requires someone with a good enough reputation to maintain it, and that >> > means most people who have that reputation do not have the time to maintain >> > it ;-) >> >> Yeah, amen to that :) > > I know, shortage of maintainers and reviewers. > I guess my suggestion was that all trivial patches goes via the > trivial tree and to have a group of interested people reviewing > patches which are submitted to trivial. > >> >> That tree still sort of exists, I am collecting the patches that are sent >> there every now and then in big batches, and those which are still >> relevant by then I send to Linus afterwards. > > I think this is a big blocker. Unless patches are applied to the tree > soon and added to linux-next, anyone creating patches based on that > tree and sending the patch might/will see the patch irrelevant. The proper solution is to get rid of trivial@ completely. It's not solving any problem at all. And a new variant of trivial@ will have the same fate. Thanks, tglx