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 ESMTP id 6EDEDBDB for ; Thu, 29 May 2014 00:47:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC3FC1FA0E for ; Thu, 29 May 2014 00:47:27 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53868397.1040002@infradead.org> Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 17:47:19 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mimi Zohar , josh@joshtriplett.org References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20140524111927.GA3455@katana> <4700397.FLxRVChBLf@vostro.rjw.lan> <1401294020.13546.95.camel@dhcp-9-2-203-236.watson.ibm.com> <20140528162833.GA23815@thin> <20140528233145.GA14933@cloud> <1401323970.13546.188.camel@dhcp-9-2-203-236.watson.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1401323970.13546.188.camel@dhcp-9-2-203-236.watson.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: James Bottomley , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 05/28/2014 05:39 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 16:31 -0700, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote: >> >>> That's the real issue. And this needs to be fixed first. >>> >>> I really started to put breaks into this cycle of hell, where I get >>> spammed with a 30+ patch series in the morning and after I spent some >>> quality time looking at it and replying to a particular patch, I get >>> another spam bomb within a few hours, which is not much better than >>> the previous one. >> >> That's definitely a good workflow question. We tell people to break >> huge patches down into pieces, and that can turn substantial changes >> into long patch series. > > Sometimes it isn't possible, or desirable, to break up large patch sets, > but for the most part that isn't the case. The next step would be to > have all of the patches within a patch set be related. from Documentation/SubmittingPatches: patch series (where a "patch series" is an ordered sequence of multiple, related patches). Not that anyone reads documentation. -- ~Randy