From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (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 4F65D2F9B for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 12:54:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13MCXLma056479; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 08:54:30 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=pp1; bh=iwDqg/vXdvsMTBkL9agx1k4973TJiqBTwrfVOKSXViA=; b=SA25W0l+GDHpmVYteT9QfvXIdVEviJXTSpC6Heh7xQg+Tqo+pbePLqqwd1SRlPOp9Fy2 spON/lZqxYrMCNth98IOlqslk9g+SbA06PgymD1xEul5b0sDc+3c4fWLI406Zm41WzEq 4+51gVGkDlRNYHq9rjbd6U42GGQaPuiEldJAWGbzK8MlBPVNV4LjDd6bL/j7I/JqmO2U ojeEb5IhRG9SUmSWand6VvN4G+JOeL2LTxCN5mP0qG6utYIEZJ5f377t8uA0nrkb4qHV fwpYHWO+A/Kl5JlUHVFX+oUyNfbl8BXi/YPoeum5BinBJVLfQ1DhW5ZJuOQjzTI0Byqw 3Q== Received: from ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (66.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.102]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 38384ju2jn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 22 Apr 2021 08:54:29 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13MCo7nZ014288; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 12:54:26 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 37yt2rttrg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 22 Apr 2021 12:54:26 +0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 13MCsOCh22085984 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 22 Apr 2021 12:54:24 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99875AE04D; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 12:54:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0876DAE056; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 12:54:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.ibm.com (unknown [9.145.40.129]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 12:54:23 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 15:54:22 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Mark Brown Cc: Leon Romanovsky , James Bottomley , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches Message-ID: References: <20210422124023.GD4572@sirena.org.uk> 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-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210422124023.GD4572@sirena.org.uk> X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: FPGMvWwkq-qPNg9_hu3o181vBYToA804 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: FPGMvWwkq-qPNg9_hu3o181vBYToA804 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-22_06:2021-04-21,2021-04-22 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 clxscore=1011 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=719 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104060000 definitions=main-2104220104 On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 01:40:23PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 07:21:26AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > While we are talking about policies, I would like to raise another bad > > practice that is done by even seasoned developers - sending patches with > > carefully crafted and filtered TO and CC. > > > This practice causes to get out of context patches without ability to > > see whole picture and the worse part that it divides feedback to > > "islands" without ability to agree or disagree with the feedback. > > The flip side of copying everyone on everything is that especially for > serieses which aren't just repetitive changes this gets really noisy > really quickly and things end up just not getting read. I think this is quite subjective and different people have different email flows. For me the most annoying is to get several patches from the middle of a series. IMHO, sending at least cover letter to everyone is the bare minimum so that people at least can take a look at high level details and request a repost. -- Sincerely yours, Mike.