From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ot1-f54.google.com (mail-ot1-f54.google.com [209.85.210.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93C9B2F83 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:32:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot1-f54.google.com with SMTP id 65-20020a9d03470000b02902808b4aec6dso35200621otv.6 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:32:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nhrYPzDxGv+/l28bIA6ykeVIy3Qr57I7WmvzN3AUg7A=; b=qqwpbK1/s8UNHcJNqCOpU8OHqDyLVDl/OnyLJI4L6UTrC4e/eoIdoCHCxnLp+jd3Y0 GfuI2QEb/2qzkB4xR3YRSTCby7S8+A0jmX4P9Fad2mZCMwyLiXaHcbV42nFqIvLHceil 84OFfFVWP2wI/adg4/cn3JAeVlr/EjBGmsJ7iTFBeJwzqCEkjtbBHxHgMvYPFvORf/Jm rY8Kx8NaZHL0lbOAtbWhzqd+slQmVuUPspSrYlZar4w1uHYZHzpFq39iJ+rXndaj7XJ2 uSw+D2nlSpurHPez6jV4/Ue0FHwcGOU9KIsom00OmESgVAotB28wCklLLAAlBpdZU6np Thyw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533jICj8Kq+Jr/a9jvXcxD6Ikl56MBTsOpCGoIT9DykYA4m+cuUr NbaCmUnfl35OwvIuuisFVa83OekemBFZQbmm9BU16AfY X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyt1ZouyFSKZVraTWd9pYpHvSEj5BxevRt43yDPX7zUxsD3DbqqBWd7S4Jc1e/wH9R6udctnHezCYYSZzTUW2k= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:bc3:: with SMTP id 61mr23253850oth.7.1619033569703; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:32:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210421152209.68075314@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20210421152209.68075314@gandalf.local.home> From: Roland Dreier Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:32:33 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches To: Steven Rostedt Cc: James Bottomley , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:22 PM Steven Rostedt wrote: > I have no problem with taking a trivial patch if they are really fixing a > bug. I think what needs to be done here is look at the patches that got in > that were buggy, and see why they got in. > > Perhaps the answer is to scrutinize trivial patches more. To me, the only > "trivial" patch is a comment fix, or update to documentation. And even > then, I spend time reviewing it. > > If you don't have time to review a patch, then by all means, don't accept > it. Perhaps the answer is simply have a higher bar on what you do accept. > > There are a few people that I will accept patches from with out review. But > anyone else, I scrutinize the code before taking it in. I agree with this. And indeed to me perhaps what needs to be calibrated is our definition of a trivial patch. If someone sends a patch that changes "speling" to "spelling" in a comment, then I think that's fine to apply without much scrutiny. If someone sends a patch that changes reference counting on an error path, then that absolutely needs to be looked at to ensure correctness. There are enough people sending wrong patches without even thinking about malicious actors. I also think there does need to be a strong sanction against this UMN research group, since we need to make sure there are strong incentives against wasting everyone's time with stunts like this. Hopefully on the academic side it can be made clear that this is not ethical research - for example, why did IEEE think this was an acceptable paper? - R.