netdev - Re: [PATCH docs v3] docs: maintainer: document expectations of small time maintainers

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: 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.