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 6B9371000 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 17:08:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA6BE764 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 17:08:16 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 14:08:09 -0300 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: Olof Johansson Message-ID: <20180921140809.18ba8eae@coco.lan> In-Reply-To: References: <20180917115916.37fd5388@coco.lan> <2174637.IVJC5EhCEq@avalon> <20180918160236.GK2471@sirena.org.uk> <20180918163231.GB10134@agluck-desk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: tim.bird@sony.com, ksummit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] community management/subsystem governance List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Em Fri, 21 Sep 2018 17:46:13 +0100 Olof Johansson escreveu: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > [ Still very much on break, but reading ksuummit-discuss and answering > > this one ] > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 9:35 AM Dmitry Torokhov > > wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 9:33 AM Luck, Tony wrote: > >> > > >> > Or, shock, horror, tell one-time contributors that it is OK to > >> > put the patch in an attachment to the e-mail. Outlook doesn't > >> > (usually) mess with the contents of attachments. > >> > >> And then have maintainer having hard time trying to comment on said > >> patch in the attachment. I'd rather not. > > > > I actually think that *this* could be easily handled by trivial > > tooling that doesn't have to be set up over and over again inside > > companies or teaching people. > > > > In fact, doesn't patchwork already do exactly that? > > > > I have to say, there are real technical advantages to using > > attachments for patches, particularly when you have odd combinations > > of locales. It's gotten to be less of an issue over time and we're > > still almost entirely US-ASCII with the occasional UTF-8, but we do > > still have the occasional problem. Using attachments at least detaches > > the email charset from the user locale, and from random other MUA > > issues. > > > > But yes, the "comment on individual parts of the patch" part is very > > important too. > > > > The main problem with having something that rewrites things is that it > > breaks DKIM etc, so you can't just have a pure email gateway. It > > almost needs to be something at a higher semantic level like patchwork > > (that could still send out rewritten emails). > > > > In many cases, you might want that anyway (ie wouldn't it be lovely > > when the patch is also checked for "does it build" and looks up the > > maintainers based on what paths it touches etc etc). > > > > So a sane email / web-interface kind of gateway that allows people to > > work the way they prefer. > > > > But I guess "trivial" is completely the wrong word to use. > > We're already starting to use some bots that sit on the mailing lists > and monitor incoming material. > > This could be solved with something as simple as a bot that takes the > patch-as-attachment, does a few useful things like runs checkpatch and > makes sure it applies cleanly (maybe report what trees it applies > cleanly to, such as current mainline and next), and then inlines the > whole patch. All as a reply-all to the sender + original recipients. > > That way, anyone looking to do an inline review can do it on the bot > version, and the originator will still receive the feedback, etc. It'd > also solve the DKIM-related aspects, if I'm not mistaken. > > People who get distracted by the bot emails can easily choose to filter it. Seems to work. Still, there are some issues with that. Depending on the email client, it may not recognize the patch as is, and use a wrong mime-type. If the mail server doesn't recognize the mime-type, or considers it evil, it may reject the e-mail, and the bot will get nothing. Not sure what's the current status of e-mailers and patches, but on my past experiences on another company (lots of years ago), usually webmail solutions are worse[1], and don't properly tag certain types of attachments. [1] I know places where only a corporate webmail solution is allowed by default, and using any other solution would require an special security approval. Not sure if is worth to consider such scenario, though. Another problem is that bots will receive the same e-mail twice (the original one and the inlined one). We may start having multiple kernel-test robots reply for such emails, with is not a good thing. So, if done this way, it is probably worth to add some meta-tags to avoid the new e-mail with the same patch to be parsed again by (other) robots. Thanks, Mauro