From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4A9FC4360C for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 07:19:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8EF92087E for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 07:19:49 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1570864789; bh=qYBLI1Okz4CcLAQuojXk1AUl8oFNRvt1z5poS5xebFs=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=BfN0yLA0pUIyG7qUiTgYsGSNyYCZ6bOF/KAIQxEBwn/k+VP2KhhL3N9oZeOk/q8q2 kmE5vRBnE+GR+DnhkogXXBJtqTiVJycXjFS0bEpgAsfsBluyXk9+vWtkmOlUSH3hmZ orWwWIWIjRYCIEu7lwg/HSqR4ulmy7H5PCtEf5qY= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728624AbfJLHTt (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Oct 2019 03:19:49 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:33564 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726821AbfJLHTt (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Oct 2019 03:19:49 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [62.119.166.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 63D85206CD; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 07:19:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1570864788; bh=qYBLI1Okz4CcLAQuojXk1AUl8oFNRvt1z5poS5xebFs=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=1/cYCHRcHMiyXT8ev45IOUinufpjjOMrnklMD2QMAlbgS3VQ5sUGYOOYGdywSCDRC i/sVYWiNYWU9P0OwPjD7Edv9ceq2J71ZzX6vPs3Cya9Qn89QuVlnMSC5CQ0yE3vSkK EaY9/bNag6G5JydlxsmqQpvouybvoErhuemI7mCc= Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 09:19:11 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Eric Wong , patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFE: use patchwork to submit a patch Message-ID: <20191012071911.GA2034802@kroah.com> References: <20191010144150.hqiosvwolm3lmzp5@chatter.i7.local> <20191011085702.GB1075470@kroah.com> <20191011200228.zuka44ve7hob4ia4@chatter.i7.local> <20191011212308.xk7xcvfamwnkwovn@dcvr> <20191011213553.g3pleurh5uomumi7@chatter.i7.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191011213553.g3pleurh5uomumi7@chatter.i7.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21) Sender: workflows-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 05:35:53PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 09:23:08PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote: > > > (This is the same reason I generally disagree with Eric Wong about > > > preserving SMTP as the primary transmission protocol -- I've heard lots of > > > complaints both from kernel developers and especially from people trying to > > > contribute to CAF about corporate policies actually making it impossible to > > > submit patches -- and no, using a different mail server is not a possibility > > > for them because it can be a firing offense under their IT AUP rules.) > > > > I'm not opposed to a webmail interface tailored to kernel hacking > > which does stuff like checkpatch.pl and get_maintainer.pl before > > sending (similar to your patchwork proposal and > > gitgadgetgadget). That would get around security appliances > > but SMTP would still be used in the background. > > > > Or offer full-blown HTTPS webmail + IMAP + SMTP access like any > > other webmail provider + checkpatch + get_maintainer helpers. > > Well, this is the bit where I say that it may not be allowed by corporate > rules. I see this all the time in CAF/Android world where companies > *require* that all email goes through their SMTP server so that it can be > properly logged (often for legal reasons). And it is often equally required > that any code submissions come from person@corporate.com and not > person@free-email-provider.com for License/CLA reasons, so setting up a > webmail server is not a solution either. > > This is basically why SMTP sucks in my view -- and it's worthless trying to > pick fights with IT departments, because they are told to do so by lawyers. > So, I want to take SMTP out of the equation: > > 1. provide a way for someone to submit a patch using a web interface (but > still in a way that From: is their corporate ID) If you do this, what happens when a maintainer/reviewer responds to that patch and says "looks good, but can you change X and resend it?" How will they get that message if it didn't go through their email system? How will they be able to respond to it? > 2. use individual git feeds as a way to send out patches instead of always > being secondary to SMTP Sending patches that way is one thing, the interaction based on those patches is another. Everyone needs to remember that only 1/3 of the patches submitted are applied. The "normal" path of development is at least a review/resend cycle for submissions (2/3 of patches). So that 2/3 can't be ignored as the "new/drive-by submissions" are probably more in that category than not. thanks, greg k-h