linux-kernel - Re: about the flood of trivial patches and the Code of Conduct

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 07 Apr 2015 13:50:31 +0200
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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

Am 07.04.2015 um 13:32 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
> 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.

I agree that the series in question is useless.
But if a patch is trivial it can go through the trivial tree.
By trivial I really mean *trivial* in terms of typos
and 80 character limit crap.
It has to be something which does not hurt and the maintainer
can safely ignore.

Thanks,
//richard
--
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/