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]

Message-ID: <5523DB6F.9090004@nod.at>
Date:	Tue, 07 Apr 2015 15:28:15 +0200
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	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 15:21 schrieb Steven Rostedt:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 01:50:31PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
> 
> Only if they received an Acked-by from the maintainer of the code that 
> it touches. That way, Peter does see the code that is changing. He doesn't
> need to take it through his tree, but the trivial maintainer must get his
> Acked-by, which shows that he did actually take a look at the patch and is
> fine with it going through another route.
> 
> 
>> By trivial I really mean *trivial* in terms of typos
>> and 80 character limit crap.
> 
> Egad no. The 80 character limit is a guideline not set in stone. There's so
> many times I see people break up lines to avoid that limit and make the
> code uglier and more difficult to read. Again, that's a trivial change that
> would do more harm than good.

That's why i named it crap. :D

>> It has to be something which does not hurt and the maintainer
>> can safely ignore.
> 
> I think the only change that could probably go in without an ack from the
> maintainer is a change that Peter already mentioned. Typos in comments that
> do not touch the actual code.

Agreed.

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/