Re: RFE: use patchwork to submit a patch

[Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 09:23:08PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
>> (This is the same reason I generally disagree with Eric Wong about
>> preserving SMTP as the primary transmission protocol -- I've heard lots of
>> complaints both from kernel developers and especially from people trying to
>> contribute to CAF about corporate policies actually making it impossible to
>> submit patches -- and no, using a different mail server is not a possibility
>> for them because it can be a firing offense under their IT AUP rules.)
>
>I'm not opposed to a webmail interface tailored to kernel hacking
>which does stuff like checkpatch.pl and get_maintainer.pl before
>sending (similar to your patchwork proposal and
>gitgadgetgadget).  That would get around security appliances
>but SMTP would still be used in the background.
>
>Or offer full-blown HTTPS webmail + IMAP + SMTP access like any
>other webmail provider + checkpatch + get_maintainer helpers.

Well, this is the bit where I say that it may not be allowed by 
corporate rules. I see this all the time in CAF/Android world where 
companies *require* that all email goes through their SMTP server so 
that it can be properly logged (often for legal reasons). And it is 
often equally required that any code submissions come from 
person@corporate.com and not person@free-email-provider.com for 
License/CLA reasons, so setting up a webmail server is not a solution 
either.

This is basically why SMTP sucks in my view -- and it's worthless trying 
to pick fights with IT departments, because they are told to do so by 
lawyers. So, I want to take SMTP out of the equation:

1. provide a way for someone to submit a patch using a web interface 
   (but still in a way that From: is their corporate ID)
2. use individual git feeds as a way to send out patches instead of 
   always being secondary to SMTP

-K