From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4717267
	for <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 17 Jul 2015 16:32:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0034.hostedemail.com
	[216.40.44.34])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491AC1F3
	for <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 17 Jul 2015 16:32:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com
	[10.5.19.251])
	by smtpgrave05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7890183EB1
	for <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 17 Jul 2015 16:23:06 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:23:03 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Message-ID: <20150717122303.247b5621@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <55A928F1.8080704@roeck-us.net>
References: <20150708114011.3a1f1861@noble> <2879113.fraeuJIr2M@avalon>
	<20150709193718.GD9169@vmdeb7> <20150710143641.GW4341@mwanda>
	<20150710160714.GL111846@vmdeb7> <20150710222351.GA28632@kroah.com>
	<20150711000034.GU111846@vmdeb7> <20150711001348.GA30675@kroah.com>
	<20150711055441.GA6316@sudip-PC>
	<20150715212043.775be5d2@gandalf.local.home>
	<20150716132551.GH4039@sirena.org.uk>
	<55A928F1.8080704@roeck-us.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>
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, 17 Jul 2015 09:10:25 -0700
Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:


> I tried both (ping and resend). In either case the response depends on the
> maintainer. Some will accept either, some will say you should have res-sent
> the patch if you sent a ping, some will tell you that you should have
> pinged if you re-sent it. Depending on the maintainer the response can be
> pretty strong.
> 
> It would be great to have a single well defined and documented mechanism
> to avoid the "whatever you do is wrong" response.

Or at least a polite reply to have them do it the other way.

 "Hi! Sorry, I've been busy and haven't had time to review your patch.
 Can you please resend the patch to me again, my inbox corrupted your
 old one"

Sure the corruption message may be a lie, but at least it will keep
them from saying "why not use what I already sent you".

-- Steve