Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Thu, Apr 22 2021 at 20:03, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2021, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>
>> Why was the trivial tree introduced? I may be missing some history here.
>
> The idea (some time in the stone age, way before I took it over), IIRC, 
> was that trivial patches are eating up cycles of maintainers that could be 
> spent in better way.
>
> This reasoning is completely moot now of course, as I myself don't have 
> time for taking care of that tree any more for quite some time already.
>
> Earth would definitely not stop rotating if we nuke any mentions of 
> trivial@ from the Documentation/ altogether.
>
>> I'm not convinced that sending trivial patches to a separate mailing 
>> list and maintainer helps everyone. As an example, I want to see block 
>> layer patches being posted on the block layer mailing list and I want to 
>> see SCSI patches being posted on the SCSI mailing list. I don't want to 
>> have to follow a separate "trivial" mailing list to verify whether or 
>> not e.g. a patch is posted on that mailing list that changes a correct 
>> comment into an incorrect comment.
>
> Most of the patches have usually been of a 'fix typo in english wording in 
> a comment / printk()' nature.

But even that typo muck creates conflicts which are not necessary at
all. So yes, that trivial thing should just die.

It seemed to be a good idea long ago ...

Thanks,

        tglx