Re: about the flood of trivial patches and the Code of Conduct (was: Re: [PATCH 19/25] sched: Use bool function return values of true/false not 1/0)

[Richard Weinberger]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:12:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> Pointing out this truth and protecting against such abusive flood of
>> trivial patches is not against the code of conduct I signed.
>
> I totally agree, it's not "against" the code of conflict that I helped
> write.
>
> Joe, you know better than to send trivial stuff to maintainers who don't
> want it.  Send it through the trivial maintainer for subsystems that
> have expressed annoyance at this, it's not the first time this has
> happened.
>
> Some maintainers, like me, are fine with your types of patches, I'd
> stick to those subsystems if you like doing this type of work.

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. :-)

-- 
Thanks,
//richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/