From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E66ECE587 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 15:33:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F18F821848 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 15:33:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="U3BVJ5ow" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730534AbfJNPdi (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Oct 2019 11:33:38 -0400 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com ([213.167.242.64]:60018 "EHLO perceval.ideasonboard.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728888AbfJNPdi (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Oct 2019 11:33:38 -0400 Received: from pendragon.ideasonboard.com (dfj612yhrgyx302h3jwwy-3.rev.dnainternet.fi [IPv6:2001:14ba:21f5:5b00:ce28:277f:58d7:3ca4]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7BA16A46; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 17:33:36 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1571067216; bh=1PNtp+RNq6LAEWA+ZniNi/chikr2lTo2+v1cZ2zlWXg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=U3BVJ5owmD+gwp8FGSBncUmudUg+jPLJ3KmOfxmX6d1MI5OSz8VgCLEPckLVem4oZ G5Gy1LwtQ+LqDSWELjXF1vzVhaFar3x31iI+X8Gxt0oe328/KzB3F/qZ88ED7WyLF3 1J+28bqhvPcFoOSV+U15rC1YfhL7G4+lGFxpXDw0= Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 18:33:33 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Konstantin Ryabitsev Cc: Eric Wong , Greg KH , patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFE: use patchwork to submit a patch Message-ID: <20191014153333.GB23442@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> References: <20191010144150.hqiosvwolm3lmzp5@chatter.i7.local> <20191011085702.GB1075470@kroah.com> <20191011200228.zuka44ve7hob4ia4@chatter.i7.local> <20191011212308.xk7xcvfamwnkwovn@dcvr> <20191011213553.g3pleurh5uomumi7@chatter.i7.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191011213553.g3pleurh5uomumi7@chatter.i7.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: workflows-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org Hi Konstantin, On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 05:35:53PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > 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 If the goal is to work around SMTP-related technical issues, is a web UI really the best way to go ? Wouldn't it be better to do the same through a git push ? We could setup a git server that requires authentication, and implement a push-to-email bridge. The information that would need to be entered in a web UI could be put in a tag message, and we could have a CLI to create the tag from a list of questions. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart