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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 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 8B792CA9EAF for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 13:58:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6729C2166E for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 13:58:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390679AbfJXN6n (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Oct 2019 09:58:43 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:39280 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2390960AbfJXN6m (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Oct 2019 09:58:42 -0400 Received: from gandalf.local.home (cpe-66-24-58-225.stny.res.rr.com [66.24.58.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9AFD621655; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 13:58:41 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 09:58:39 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Dmitry Vyukov Cc: Laurent Pinchart , "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , Shuah Khan , Greg KH , patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFE: use patchwork to submit a patch Message-ID: <20191024095839.44429eeb@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <20191010144150.hqiosvwolm3lmzp5@chatter.i7.local> <20191011085702.GB1075470@kroah.com> <20191014205658.GG5564@mit.edu> <20191015083741.1d0731e5@gandalf.local.home> <20191015163704.GJ4875@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <20191015124749.1a11926f@gandalf.local.home> <20191021153918.GE4947@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <20191024091541.10af3417@gandalf.local.home> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.3 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: workflows-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:33:04 +0200 Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 3:15 PM Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 18:39:18 +0300 > > Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Purely theoretically let's consider that the changes do not improve > _your_ efficiency, but they significantly improve overall project > efficiency by positively affecting people who did not develop a > workflow over the past decades (maybe there were not around 2 decades > ago) and positively affecting various tooling that _you_ may be > directly interested in, but otherwise they are important for the > project overall. So for you it's no change in efficiency except that > you now need to do things differently. What do you think about such > changes? Are you ready to force yourself? :) > I think it's quite cornerstone question here. All (?) major figures in > the kernel (who are ~~98% of decision making, but ~~2% of kernel > developers overall) have developed workflows over the past decades > that work reasonably well for them. If they veto all proposed changes > based on the criteria you described, every new contributor will need > decades to develop own workflows to become an efficient contributor > and lots of tooling will be painfully hard to do. > The above sound like a one size fits all approach, which I would caste a veto to. I would like a solution that works for multiple workflows. One where mine and others still work too. Please, lets work on a infrastructure that is robust and flexible, that is split into back and front ends. That way, we have a single "back end" and multiple front ends that suite everyone's needs. -- Steve