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 ESMTPS id D2FC4AB2 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 23:17:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 076CC112 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 23:16:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 541FD20B30 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:16:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 15:23:51 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Darren Hart Message-ID: <20150710222351.GA28632@kroah.com> References: <201507080121.41463.PeterHuewe@gmx.de> <559C73DF.2030008@roeck-us.net> <20150708114011.3a1f1861@noble> <2879113.fraeuJIr2M@avalon> <20150709193718.GD9169@vmdeb7> <20150710143641.GW4341@mwanda> <20150710160714.GL111846@vmdeb7> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150710160714.GL111846@vmdeb7> Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Dan Carpenter , Jason Cooper Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Recruitment (Reviewers, Testers, Maintainers, Hobbyists) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 09:07:14AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 05:36:41PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > Or you could just create a generic form letter like Greg does. > > > > OK, so this is precisely the kind of individually developed special purpose > wizardry that I think hinders recruitment. Rather than having every maintainer > reinvent this wheel in a subtly different a personal way (which gets back to the > issues raised about subtly different expectations per maintainer), it makes a > lot of sense to me to create a common infrastructure that we can all use. Ok, feel free to use my "form letter" that I've created over the years and expand on it for more common problems if I've missed anything. I just dump it into a response to the patch (3 keystrokes), and cut away anything that isn't relevant to this specific patch. Seems to work pretty well in cutting down on me having to type the same thing all the time. -------------------------- Hi, This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux kernel tree. You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s) as indicated below: - Your patch breaks the build. - Your patch contains warnings and/or errors noticed by the scripts/checkpatch.pl tool. - Your patch is malformed (tabs converted to spaces, linewrapped, etc.) and can not be applied. Please read the file, Documentation/email-clients.txt in order to fix this. - Your patch does not have a Signed-off-by: line. Please read the kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches and resend it after adding that line. Note, the line needs to be in the body of the email, before the patch, not at the bottom of the patch or in the email signature. - Your patch was sent privately to Greg. Kernel development is done in public, please always cc: a public mailing list with a patch submission. Using the tool, scripts/get_maintainer.pl on the patch will tell you what mailing list to cc. - Your patch did many different things all at once, making it difficult to review. All Linux kernel patches need to only do one thing at a time. If you need to do multiple things (such as clean up all coding style issues in a file/driver), do it in a sequence of patches, each one doing only one thing. This will make it easier to review the patches to ensure that they are correct, and to help alleviate any merge issues that larger patches can cause. - Your patch did not apply to any known trees that Greg is in control of. Possibly this is because you made it against Linus's tree, not the linux-next tree, which is where all of the development for the next version of the kernel is at. Please refresh your patch against the linux-next tree, or even better yet, the development tree specified in the MAINTAINERS file for the subsystem you are submitting a patch for, and resend it. - You sent multiple patches, yet no indication of which ones should be applied in which order. Greg could just guess, but if you are receiving this email, he guessed wrong and the patches didn't apply. Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for a description of how to do this so that Greg has a chance to apply these correctly. - You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or possibly, any description at all, in the email body. Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order to properly describe the change. - You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing Greg, and everyone else, to know what this patch is all about. Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what a proper Subject: line should look like. If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received from other developers. thanks, greg k-h's patch email bot