From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756322AbbDGN2Y (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2015 09:28:24 -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 S1756303AbbDGN2U (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2015 09:28:20 -0400 Message-ID: <5523DB6F.9090004@nod.at> Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 15:28:15 +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: Steven Rostedt CC: Peter Zijlstra , 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> <5523C487.5020804@nod.at> <20150407132111.GA6801@home.goodmis.org> In-Reply-To: <20150407132111.GA6801@home.goodmis.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 07.04.2015 um 15:21 schrieb Steven Rostedt: > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 01:50:31PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: >>> >>> 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. > > Only if they received an Acked-by from the maintainer of the code that > it touches. That way, Peter does see the code that is changing. He doesn't > need to take it through his tree, but the trivial maintainer must get his > Acked-by, which shows that he did actually take a look at the patch and is > fine with it going through another route. > > >> By trivial I really mean *trivial* in terms of typos >> and 80 character limit crap. > > Egad no. The 80 character limit is a guideline not set in stone. There's so > many times I see people break up lines to avoid that limit and make the > code uglier and more difficult to read. Again, that's a trivial change that > would do more harm than good. That's why i named it crap. :D >> It has to be something which does not hurt and the maintainer >> can safely ignore. > > I think the only change that could probably go in without an ack from the > maintainer is a change that Peter already mentioned. Typos in comments that > do not touch the actual code. Agreed. Thanks, //richard