[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230720144246.7e3507d1@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 14:42:46 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
Cc: corbet@....net, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...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, 20 Jul 2023 19:23:56 +0100 Edward Cree wrote:
> 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?
For networking you can check patchwork, if it's already marked
as rejected or such - there's no need to respond.
> 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?
Repeating the same thing over and over is sadly a part of being
a maintainer, tho.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists