From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dvhart@infradead.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA3E4AF3
	for <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 10 Jul 2015 02:00:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77032173
	for <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 10 Jul 2015 02:00:09 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 19:00:03 -0700
From: Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Message-ID: <20150710020003.GG111846@vmdeb7>
References: <201507080121.41463.PeterHuewe@gmx.de>
	<1436481109.3324.219.camel@infradead.org>
	<20150709233854.GE111846@vmdeb7>
	<2859525.zQ8ln2Qgy6@vostro.rjw.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2859525.zQ8ln2Qgy6@vostro.rjw.lan>
Cc: Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
	ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Recruitment (Reviewers, Testers,
 Maintainers, Hobbyists)
List-Id: <ksummit-discuss.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/ksummit-discuss>,
	<mailto:ksummit-discuss-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ksummit-discuss-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss>,
	<mailto:ksummit-discuss-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 02:55:32AM +0200, Rafael Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, July 09, 2015 04:38:54 PM Darren Hart wrote:

> So the automation is only useful here as long as it helps patch submitters to
> get their work to the point at which it can be understood by a reviewer in
> a relatively short time.  Otherwise, it is just not helpful in that respect.

And that's the gist of what I'm getting at. Automation could help get things to
a reviewable state so maintainers/reviewers spend less time on what Josh called
"mechanical" errors, on things the submitter should have caught themselves, etc.

> For example, if someone sends me a patch that doesn't apply, but that I can
> easily understand and I think "Yeah, that's a good idea!", I may fix it up
> and make it build and so on just fine.  But without understanding, I pretty
> much can't do anything with it even if it got all of the details perfect.

Yes, of course.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center