From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) (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 959412F83 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 12:58:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2CC6F611AE; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 12:58:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1619182683; bh=L84qg3MsMHBWWa9ZxpGbrGa+eSKcJtHUOP4HSyHKPrE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ETrBZxptC3+7P72JBTkErMG+V+Vn9nyuXTGZkR5sI7zeZt35pmaK4EjQief5drmsy zU8p30ChcefDgSnIwfIGnslpmbvPDly3lSU9LZXsnOGhWuRrmMlak5dqU6MU04rLdR kcvD/ai8ldOLFDOCDH1unaXMEsABAzhRBlXZn0Tz5uyC8+yL3BjODNv7YVBd8Js8bw 5QTYYGm64CVz2DB4UI/LPVuJ9kvNXKUDTWpI+OZ3J0/jD13HAZ79hXj7UFHplo53b1 bcFSr8Fa0vFX9qLPyQijbjPDmKdUYDk2e6R7lNFs0VZziNuDTwXAwPQXJa37NIct+k yFqmq2rsloNdg== Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:57:58 +0200 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: Jan Kara Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" , Steven Rostedt , James Bottomley , Shuah Khan , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches Message-ID: <20210423145758.4c6c144d@coco.lan> In-Reply-To: <20210423111606.GC8755@quack2.suse.cz> References: <20210422123559.1dc647fb@coco.lan> <0d83502f-eb29-9b06-ada8-fcd03f9c87a8@linuxfoundation.org> <20210422115235.0526dabd@gandalf.local.home> <20210422161340.GB8755@quack2.suse.cz> <20210423111606.GC8755@quack2.suse.cz> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Em Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:16:06 +0200 Jan Kara escreveu: > On Thu 22-04-21 13:08:09, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > > > Jan, > > > > > Is it that hard to improve quilt? > > > > Now that we have tighter integration between the various components of > > our infrastructure, I wonder if we should reconsider the patch > > submission process? > > > > Instead of putting the burden on the submitter to pick the right 20 > > mailing lists to CC: and accommodate 100 developers and maintainers with > > individual delivery preferences, why not let the k.org infrastructure > > automate that aspect? > > > > Have a patch ingress email address that runs get_maintainer.pl to figure > > out who to reach out to. And then everybody with a kernel.org account > > can twiddle their preferences wrt. whether to receive the whole series, > > only patches that touch files they are responsible for, opt not to > > receive individual mails but only the relevant mailing list copy, > > whether to receive stable backport notifications, etc. > > > > That would substantially lower the barrier of entry for patch > > submitters. More work for Konstantin, obviously. And potentially some > > transitional grievances for most of the rest of us based on our > > individual workflows and preferences. > > > > Just an idea, I know it's a bit controversial. However, there seems to > > be no shortage of problems originating in the patch mail preparation and > > sending department. Seems like a bigger barrier for some than developing > > the actual patch. > > > > We could even consider supporting receiving and disseminating git > > bundles on the ingress. That would help overcome the many problems with > > corporate email servers vs. git send-email. A ton of problems are > > introduced as developers copy and paste things from their corporate > > email to GMail, etc. Seems like our backend tooling could help alleviate > > some of those pains without completely wrecking the mail-based flow we > > maintainers are comfortable with... > > I agree this would be a nicer solution and I think something like this is > eventual Konstantin's goal. So hopefully we'll get there once :) The idea is nice, but, for this to work, the reply-to address should point to some bot at kernel.org infra, as all replies to a given patch (or cover) should be replied to everyone that it was c/c on the original e-mail, plus the patch submitter. Thanks, Mauro