[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150407113212.GM21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 13:32:12 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: about the flood of trivial patches and the Code of Conduct (was:
Re: [PATCH 19/25] sched: Use bool function return values of true/false not
1/0)
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 01:28:27PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Can't we send all these kind of patches through the trivial tree?
> Don't get me wrong, if you are fine with these patches that's you decision.
> But other maintainers might think they have to take these patches and
> get overloaded. I'm thinking of drivers maintainers that can only work
> one or two hours per week on Linux.
> Not everyone works full time on it like you.
>
> I propose to send all this stuff though the trivial tree such that maintainers
> of other subsystems have less workload and newbies (which are supposed
> to send such patches) know which tree they have to work against.
> Let's have to well defined and ordered. :-)
As per the other branch of this tree; an emphatic NO to that. The
trivial tree is not a backdoor to bypass maintainers. Actual code
changes do not get to go through any tree but the maintainer tree unless
explicitly ACKed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists