From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 10:39:34 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o To: Julia Lawall Message-ID: <20160914143934.4nkdur7ivgywyfrt@thunk.org> References: <20160913194520.GA8071@cloud> <20160913140322.3ccad27c@lwn.net> <4691924.fimvUkKjuv@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160914020332.GA9558@cloud> <1473819862.32273.16.camel@perches.com> <20160914115456.GB22341@kroah.com> <1473863028.32273.28.camel@perches.com> <20160914143205.GA11149@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: Joe Perches , ksummit-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] checkpatch/Codingstyle and trivial patch spam List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 04:35:06PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > The --force is only required for non-staging code? If it is required for > staging code, then we will have to document it in the outreachy tutorial, > and then all the (non-outreachy) newbies who look at the tutorial will > know about it... The whole point of the option is to try to discourage people from sending white-space (or only style-only) patches. So I'm not so sure that it would be such a tragedy if people like (for example) Markus Elfing or Nick Krause don't find out about the --force option right away. Given that outreachy folks are encouraged to work on staging code anyway, would it make a difference to them? - Ted