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 F2D7767 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:09:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DAA31129 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:09:23 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <55ACBAA1.20505@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:08:49 +0800 From: Zefan Li MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Josh Triplett References: <20150717101151.5d5bc86d@lwn.net> <20150717133712.42c82add@gandalf.local.home> <20150717190223.GB1499@cloud> <20150717154326.6f129bc4@gandalf.local.home> <20150717202412.GA1856@cloud> <20150717163903.67747d86@gandalf.local.home> <20150717204856.GA2048@cloud> <20150717165501.62ed4e04@gandalf.local.home> <55AC5E3B.9040102@huawei.com> <20150720051605.GA10779@x> In-Reply-To: <20150720051605.GA10779@x> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: James Bottomley , Dan Carpenter , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Jason Cooper Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Recruitment (Reviewers, Testers, Maintainers, Hobbyists) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 2015/7/20 13:16, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:34:35AM +0800, Zefan Li wrote: >>> I.e. I might propose a a slightly controversial topic, going a bit the >>> other direction than the whole "motivating newcomers" discussion: how to >>> get rid of useless submissions that are slowing maintainers down? >>> >> >> Do we really have this issue? >> >> If we are encouraging more people to get involved in kernel contribution, we'll >> sure occasionally see some patches with little value, but I don't think we are >> suffering from this. >> >> And When we see a patch of this kind, it won't take us much time to tell the >> newbie why the patch isn't appropriate, and then he probably won't do this again. > > That's exactly the kind of thing that we *shouldn't* do. > > Think about that from the new contributor's perspective. They've made a > change to the kernel that has a small but non-zero value. They've just > managed to work out how to jump through all the hoops needed to prepare > and submit it properly for the kernel, through some combination of > reading, lurking, and mentorship. And the first response they see is a > maintainer like you saying "please don't send this kind of patch". > > Yeah, they probably won't do that again. Congratulations, you defeated > the newbie and thwarted their evil maintainer-time-wasting scheme! Hail > the conquering hero; insert victory fanfare here. If you and others > keep up that vigilance, perhaps one day all maintainers can rest easy, > knowing they'll never again have to deal with new contributors. > > > > It's perfectly reasonable to tell someone that, since they've gotten the > hang of sending kernel patches, they should move on to more substantial > changes, and leave simpler fixes to other potential new contributors. > But that's different than telling them their patch is unwelcome. > > (If someone sends in a patch that's actively wrong, sure, go right ahead > and tell them what's wrong with it. But there's a difference between > "wrong" and just "not that important".) > I was saying zero-value patches like whitespace cleanups but not small-but-non-zero ones. And I didn't mean we should just close the doors to them. I should have said this "tell the newbie why the patch isn't approriate and ask him if he's interested in working on some more valuable things"