Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] community management/subsystem governance

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>]

On Monday, September 17, 2018 11:59:22 PM CEST Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, September 17, 2018 3:12:18 PM CEST Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 08:43:35AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > While I do agree that the main Kernel development should happen via
> > > email on the foreseen future, Why e-mail would be a mandatory
> > > requirement for all kinds of Kernel development? 
> > > 
> > > I don't believe that a single development model fits all cases.
> > > 
> > > Let's say that someone is using something like github to manage the
> > > development of a single driver - or even a low traffic subsystem.
> > 
> > Sadly enough that already is the case.  The ACPI maintainers refuse
> > to take perfectly fine patches and instead redirect people to a
> > github version (which doesn't look like the kernel code at all),
> > which requires a signup with a not exactly trust-worthy webservice.
> 
> That's ACPICA to be precise and that's because it is a separate project really
> that's used by the kernel.  It generally is better to get patches to the
> upstream first and to the kernel from there.
> 
> That's nothing new, though, it's been like that for years.

Also they do take patches from email (they may not prefer to do it this way,
but still), but those patches need to be against the upstream code base
which, indeed, uses a different coding style and other conventions.

Cheers,
Rafael