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 D8E9340C for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2018 13:12:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 947AF102 for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2018 13:12:19 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 06:12:18 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Message-ID: <20180917131218.GA23637@infradead.org> References: <8412864.7ztUKcXNNC@avalon> <20180910211128.GH16557@thunk.org> <1939259.kNhvOyGpTJ@avalon> <20180917084335.007012ec@coco.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180917084335.007012ec@coco.lan> Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] community management/subsystem governance List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 08:43:35AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > While I do agree that the main Kernel development should happen via > email on the foreseen future, Why e-mail would be a mandatory > requirement for all kinds of Kernel development? > > I don't believe that a single development model fits all cases. > > Let's say that someone is using something like github to manage the > development of a single driver - or even a low traffic subsystem. Sadly enough that already is the case. The ACPI maintainers refuse to take perfectly fine patches and instead redirect people to a github version (which doesn't look like the kernel code at all), which requires a signup with a not exactly trust-worthy webservice. I don't think we should care how a subsystem is managed internally as long as they accept perfectly fine formatted patches by email.