From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8168C0B for ; Thu, 29 May 2014 00:52:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com (e33.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.151]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 501F31FC59 for ; Thu, 29 May 2014 00:52:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from /spool/local by e33.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 28 May 2014 18:52:51 -0600 Received: from b03cxnp08025.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08025.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.17]) by d03dlp03.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52CFB19D8042 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 18:52:41 -0600 (MDT) Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by b03cxnp08025.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s4T0qmFJ8716694 for ; Thu, 29 May 2014 02:52:48 +0200 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s4T0qld4024886 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 18:52:48 -0600 Message-ID: <1401324765.13546.191.camel@dhcp-9-2-203-236.watson.ibm.com> From: Mimi Zohar To: Randy Dunlap Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 20:52:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <53868397.1040002@infradead.org> References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20140524111927.GA3455@katana> <4700397.FLxRVChBLf@vostro.rjw.lan> <1401294020.13546.95.camel@dhcp-9-2-203-236.watson.ibm.com> <20140528162833.GA23815@thin> <20140528233145.GA14933@cloud> <1401323970.13546.188.camel@dhcp-9-2-203-236.watson.ibm.com> <53868397.1040002@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: James Bottomley , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 17:47 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 05/28/2014 05:39 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 16:31 -0700, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote: > >> > >>> That's the real issue. And this needs to be fixed first. > >>> > >>> I really started to put breaks into this cycle of hell, where I get > >>> spammed with a 30+ patch series in the morning and after I spent some > >>> quality time looking at it and replying to a particular patch, I get > >>> another spam bomb within a few hours, which is not much better than > >>> the previous one. > >> > >> That's definitely a good workflow question. We tell people to break > >> huge patches down into pieces, and that can turn substantial changes > >> into long patch series. > > > > Sometimes it isn't possible, or desirable, to break up large patch sets, > > but for the most part that isn't the case. The next step would be to > > have all of the patches within a patch set be related. > > from Documentation/SubmittingPatches: > > patch series (where a "patch > series" is an ordered sequence of multiple, related patches). > > Not that anyone reads documentation. Thanks, Randy, for the reminder. Mimi