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 233BC70 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 15:14:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13MF47gs025378; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 11:14:48 -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=MzPIH45olM9O38zyQdVuih0wuOw1yJaMi9p7cxCA1a8=; b=dNhHJXrKwwdAvGq2MsrHAQt2LTOeWFCi3GLiIpKXR7lqFk+qWzS7hrS4aNzU5HZMWV1L xjYaYNKHE6YFck3Q+y6uz4vf6Pi0hByMUuIB4uK3RoOMYe2QURMySyvuhoyx0hd8saa3 60lrnrKlY9XXf7VAGL4O8nDrNlEvNA9u9s103fzSKe3H7BoDMlAjyJxQDKzpYrx1roEA SawF6uZxa8gy79zBMskEv4kMkUsWcxzF4WjnyuN/r1eAtUU1p6eYetaiYWij4/roltGy tG0G8va12/vM0417383CwyauMXVpd1E2hCfiFxx26DvGQMwkAZrf7R+7xMgZnB3BH/45 aw== Received: from ppma01fra.de.ibm.com (46.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.70]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 383at7j7p9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 22 Apr 2021 11:14:48 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma01fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma01fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13MF2rkT023117; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 15:14:45 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by ppma01fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 37yqa89ms7-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 22 Apr 2021 15:14:44 +0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 13MFEgOx27263420 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 22 Apr 2021 15:14:42 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86DB311C052; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 15:14:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFD2A11C04C; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 15:14:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.ibm.com (unknown [9.145.40.129]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 15:14:41 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 18:14:39 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Laurent Pinchart Cc: Mark Brown , 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: X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 6BQQC6X_EOaR_AvjiOMlGY0YnXOFZL8w X-Proofpoint-GUID: 6BQQC6X_EOaR_AvjiOMlGY0YnXOFZL8w X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-22_06:2021-04-22,2021-04-22 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 clxscore=1011 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=446 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104060000 definitions=main-2104220120 On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 05:51:23PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 03:54:22PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > 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. > > Could tooling based on lore and b4 help here ? The prospect of getting > more patches in my inbox isn't exactly enticing, but the ability to > quickly get the full context of a patch series is certainly useful (I've > had to look up parts I wasn't CC'ed on previously). lore definitely helps, but still requires an extra step. I think having the cover letter in your inbox helps to decide if you want to do that extra step. -- Sincerely yours, Mike.