From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753801AbbDGLuj (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2015 07:50:39 -0400 Received: from a.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.143]:65275 "EHLO radon.swed.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753286AbbDGLuh (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2015 07:50:37 -0400 Message-ID: <5523C487.5020804@nod.at> Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 13:50:31 +0200 From: Richard Weinberger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Zijlstra CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Ingo Molnar , Joe Perches , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: about the flood of trivial patches and the Code of Conduct References: <93bd3fb8db14c75508f7169840824539a3f89606.1427759010.git.joe@perches.com> <20150331085320.GR27490@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20150331090349.GA16604@gmail.com> <1427820400.10376.23.camel@perches.com> <20150407091246.GA9673@gmail.com> <20150407110049.GA11218@kroah.com> <20150407113212.GM21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> In-Reply-To: <20150407113212.GM21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 07.04.2015 um 13:32 schrieb Peter Zijlstra: > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 01:28:27PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> Can't we send all these kind of patches through the trivial tree? >> Don't get me wrong, if you are fine with these patches that's you decision. >> But other maintainers might think they have to take these patches and >> get overloaded. I'm thinking of drivers maintainers that can only work >> one or two hours per week on Linux. >> Not everyone works full time on it like you. >> >> I propose to send all this stuff though the trivial tree such that maintainers >> of other subsystems have less workload and newbies (which are supposed >> to send such patches) know which tree they have to work against. >> Let's have to well defined and ordered. :-) > > As per the other branch of this tree; an emphatic NO to that. The > trivial tree is not a backdoor to bypass maintainers. Actual code > changes do not get to go through any tree but the maintainer tree unless > explicitly ACKed. I agree that the series in question is useless. But if a patch is trivial it can go through the trivial tree. By trivial I really mean *trivial* in terms of typos and 80 character limit crap. It has to be something which does not hurt and the maintainer can safely ignore. Thanks, //richard