[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1d136db7-4c39-4b56-86fc-3840b1395b4d@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 19:31:11 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, corbet@....net,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux@...mhuis.info, kvalo@...nel.org,
benjamin.poirier@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH docs v3] docs: maintainer: document expectations of small
time maintainers
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 07:23:56PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 19/07/2023 19:32, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > +Maintainers must review *all* patches touching exclusively their drivers,
> > +no matter how trivial. If the patch is a tree wide change and modifies
> > +multiple drivers - whether to provide a review is left to the maintainer.
> Does this apply even to "checkpatch cleanup patch spam", where other patches
> sprayed from the same source (perhaps against other drivers) have already
> been nacked as worthless churn? I've generally been assuming I can ignore
> those, do I need to make sure to explicitly respond with typically a repeat
> of what's already been said elsewhere?
Yeah, it's this sort of stuff that makes me concerned about the "must"
wording. I'd say it's obviously reasonable to ignore such things.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists