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 56E40D53 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:04:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com (aserp2120.oracle.com [141.146.126.78]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9DA813A for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:04:09 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 12:03:57 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter To: Guenter Roeck Message-ID: <20180912090357.4i3bvh5ioca7tfok@mwanda> References: <20180907014930.GE16300@sasha-vm> <20180907145437.GF16300@sasha-vm> <20180910194310.GV16300@sasha-vm> <20180910164519.6cbcc116@vmware.local.home> <20180910212019.GA32269@roeck-us.net> <20180911111853.GB8018@sirena.org.uk> <20180911170212.GC8284@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180911170212.GC8284@roeck-us.net> Cc: ksummit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Bug-introducing patches List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:02:12AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > FWIW, for the most part I stopped reporting issues with -next after some people > yelled at me for the 'noise' I was creating. Along the line of "This has been > fixed in branch xxx; why don't you do your homework and check there", with > branch xxx not even being in -next. I don't mind "this has already been > reported/fixed", quite the contrary, but the "why don't you do your homework" > got me over the edge. > > To even consider reporting issues in -next on a more regular basis, I'd like > to see a common agreement that reporting such issues does not warrant being > yelled at, even if the issue has been fixed somewhere or if it has already > been reported. Otherwise I'll stick with doing what I do now: If something > is broken for more than a week, I _may_ start looking at it if I have some > spare time and/or need a break from my day-to-day work. I ran into the same issue with static checker warnings. I tried to make it more obvious that my bug reports were basically automated. I tried to make the language a bit stilted and robotic. Robots don't judge you and it does no good to get angry with a robot. The static checker people sometimes do send duplicate fixes. But really if people don't want that they should stop writing buggy code to begin with. I think everyone is used to getting duplicate warnings and patches now maybe so they don't complain so much any more. (to me). The deal with using a different tree. I do that for networking because Dave Miller is a very busy maintainer, but for everyone else I just use linux-next. Some people have complained that they are special but all the static checker devs assured them that they are not. We are not going to read the custom documentation for sending patches to their git tree. Unless they can script it so it works automatically for everyone then, sorry. I will still send them bug reports, but I'm not going to send custom formatted patches. Just give me Reported-by credit and custom format it your own blasted self. :) regards, dan carpenter