From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (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 ED64C182BC for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 15:30:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pendragon.ideasonboard.com (213-243-189-158.bb.dnainternet.fi [213.243.189.158]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 837BAC85; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 17:29:24 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1692372564; bh=buADElh1KjhL97do2nIxHHDyCqf0KQiIH/Mn4+Lt9Iw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=hSzrzNpnypdAoWu+VMtctGLGcW2n0C7N2jw0UrENJHsbNqVl7mbTdferAQuXF+oVX SJ1qAKk0q4AOybsSnrljMlwzBxIbXMvqWZbjF3eFbuR46kyo3vlLe+B/mPgU5AgsSO zMNNUJUYUqZis9sPi3JTGsUtcbfrcP4xJ3olMWV8= Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 18:30:45 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Miguel Ojeda Cc: Mark Brown , Jani Nikula , Luis Chamberlain , Josef Bacik , ksummit@lists.linux.dev, Jeff Layton , Song Liu , Greg KH Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Maintainer burnout Message-ID: <20230818153045.GB13558@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> References: <20230816180808.GB2919664@perftesting> <87ttsx98ue.fsf@intel.com> <20230817124255.GI21668@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <20230817150336.GJ21668@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: (CC'ing Greg) On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 07:41:43PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 5:03 PM Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 03:56:43PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > > > > I think the bot should simply reply commenting on the issues it has > > > found, without judging whether the patch should or should not be > > > reviewed (and the bot could perhaps explicitly say so to avoid > > > submitters getting discouraged). > > > > > > Then, depending on what the bot finds, i.e. the amount and kind of > > > issues, reviewers can decide and reply as needed. RFC patches could be > > > skipped by the bot. > > > > This defeats a little bit the point of lowering the workload of > > reviewers though, if they have to review each bot report and reply to it > > manually :-) > > No, it does not. The point is that you don't need to point out trivial > mistakes anymore, nor devote time to find them. > > Just by judging the length of the bot's reply and the importance of > the spotted issues, you can make an assessment. But you'll still need to reply to the submitter to tell what to expect. As far as I understand, this was considered enough of an issue by Greg to be automated to remove even the human need to push a button, see https://github.com/gregkh/gregkh-linux/blob/master/forms/patch_bot. > And, of course, you can also group particular issues as "no-go", so > that the bot already says there needs to be most likely a new version > (e.g. no SoB, no license, no commit message, bad formatting, build > errors...), suited to the particular subsystem. That would work for me, and I think that's essentially what Greg's bot does. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart