From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (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 A68642FA2 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 21:26:42 +0000 (UTC) From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1619126801; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=rR0AUie51HNmwLrfJFQK9J/ecpaUMYyb/PT9ywI8dpQ=; b=EGNcP93+FwvdyoSvFc4jwK+ts6NjWGDgNOVooL8JkzwlUt5MDpzc6juVysPFqNyD+m2fp5 xr7cav4CDmbn3hmwf/rluJTA6T7A63zTec5zQOLNsIoS+b7V0XoOVzbDRnRgC4B4oHzLyq aFvod+i0020S0eeyEwnP3loFJf7HiRKiEIDVESPpN6TXDvyzPEVdJqKsT24by5TsNckEHd 2RI4wPNRXXtBR0DYEyCg5hWcqrd8Jmhbrs1CLNhf5H3hTZ/JuD7yXlENu1XjklX51wZoow qFl08A37axx4ymgX7niviyvSYDLwK63y4235wXhox1i3jJLZqsSxYH2vPrwdNQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1619126801; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=rR0AUie51HNmwLrfJFQK9J/ecpaUMYyb/PT9ywI8dpQ=; b=7bgZiS2VjlxhFIBnm45R544izXF72KhJEF0IczUFRzPW41/garviwskYILg1NHm5RuPTA+ ObYQDlkt8GhCUuAw== To: Jiri Kosina , Bart Van Assche Cc: James Bottomley , Shuah Khan , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches In-Reply-To: References: <20210422123559.1dc647fb@coco.lan> <0d83502f-eb29-9b06-ada8-fcd03f9c87a8@linuxfoundation.org> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 23:26:40 +0200 Message-ID: <8735vixb73.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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