From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) (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 4B3E871 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 17:58:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C5A6ABF6; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 17:58:18 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 19:58:18 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: Bart Van Assche cc: Joe Perches , "Martin K. Petersen" , James Bottomley , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LSU 202 2017-01-01) X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 22 Apr 2021, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > And I believe James is referring to whitespace style trivial patches. > > Maybe it's just me but I don't like patches that only change whitespace > or the coding style. I'm fine with such patches if these are part of a > larger patch series that also fixes bugs but not if such patches are > posted on their own. "git log -p" and "git blame" are important tools to > learn more about why code evolved into its current state. > Whitespace-only patches make it harder to follow how code evolved into > its current state. Just to state the (hopefully) obvious -- even on the rare ocasions I am actually collecting patches for trivial.git, I am ignoring whitespace-only "fixes". -- Jiri Kosina Director, SUSE Labs Core