From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BECF14F63 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 14:22:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46DE9C433C8; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 14:22:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 10:22:10 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Jani Nikula Cc: Luis Chamberlain , Josef Bacik , ksummit@lists.linux.dev, Jeff Layton , Song Liu Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Maintainer burnout Message-ID: <20230817102210.0b17f985@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <87ttsx98ue.fsf@intel.com> References: <20230816180808.GB2919664@perftesting> <87ttsx98ue.fsf@intel.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 15:00:57 +0300 Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 16 Aug 2023, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > In so far as making it possible to get b) to help, my current excitement > > surrounds around what Song Liu mentioned to me at LSFMM and then > > quickly demonstrated that the eBPF folks are doing with patchwork. > > Get the patches to be tested automatically, and *immediately* > > patch reviewers and maintainers can get feedback if something is not even > > worth reviewing. > > I'm all for automated testing and CI, and all i915 patches get tested > before merging. But requiring everything to pass before a human so much > as looks at it can be incredibly demotivating for contributors. For > example, if they polish the contribution, and take all corner cases into > consideration to pass the tests... and then get told their design is all > wrong and needs to be redone from scratch. It's a balance. > For big new features, I agree. They shouldn't need to pass all tests. I think anything that has an [RFC] subject should bypass the test requirements. But I get a bunch of fixes patches, that fail tests all the time. If you are sending a fix to something that causes a regression, the maintainer should not be involved. Automated tests should be enough to tell the submitter to go back and redo their patch. -- Steve