On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 06:45:06PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org> wrote:

> > Right; that's exactly how it should be done in my view.

> > But if Daniel's tree has always fed into yours (no matter whether the 'git 
> > merge' way or 'apply patch' way), in doesn't really decrease the net 
> > effort one level above.

> I disagree. I use to take his patches and pull them in. But having him do
> it, and also write the pull request, makes my job so much easier.

> Note, I review his work, but not some much as if I were to review his
> patches. I look at it at a different level when it's a pull request. I
> trust Daniel enough to not go through his work with a fine comb, but
> instead just look to make sure the general idea is sound.

I don't think the mechanics of how patches get moved about has a huge
impact on the effort involved - trust and delegation make much more of
a difference.  I've got several areas where other people are reviewing
large volumes of patches before I ever see them, those take me almost no
time compared to what comes to me directly because of the level of trust
I place in these reviewers.  These differences aren't really obvious in
the git history but they're very real.