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 D96D49B for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 23:03:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net (bh-25.webhostbox.net [208.91.199.152]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDD48143 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 23:03:11 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <55AD7E2C.9090804@roeck-us.net> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:03:08 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg KH References: <20150717154326.6f129bc4@gandalf.local.home> <20150717202412.GA1856@cloud> <20150717163903.67747d86@gandalf.local.home> <20150717204856.GA2048@cloud> <20150717165501.62ed4e04@gandalf.local.home> <1437376105.8968.14.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20150720203007.GA7797@kroah.com> <55AD7263.8050605@roeck-us.net> <20150720223242.GB23638@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20150720223242.GB23638@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed 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 07/20/2015 03:32 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 03:12:51PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On 07/20/2015 01:30 PM, Greg KH wrote: >> >>>> If there really is a problem that some maintainer is getting inundated >>>> with patches addressing unimportant cosmetic issues, could it be a good >>>> idea to: >>>> >>>> * Fix the code and get it over with, >>>> * Drop the code from the kernel, if no one uses it, or >>>> * Put a comment in the file saying that the file is no longer being >>>> actively developed and only bug fixes will be accepted. >>> >>> I agree with this. If your subsystem is constantly getting hit with >>> coding style cleanups that you don't want (i.e. SCSI), put something in >>> the top of the file that says "don't clean up the style". >>> >> >> How about a cleanup tag in MAINTAINERS ? Then checkpatch could warn >> if it is used on a file tagged as do-not-clean, and every maintainer >> could set preferences as desired. >> >> Something like >> >> C: yes >> C: limited (prior to functional changes only) >> C: no >> >> Either limited or yes could be the default. >> >> The "Obsolete" status presumably implies that cleanups are not desired, >> and checkpatch could issue a warning if it is run on an obsolete file >> or subsystem. > > Ugh, let's stop trying to add more flags to MAINTAINERS that no one will > notice and will get out of date and be a pain to maintain over time. > It would be noticed since checkpatch would use it. And maintainers would have interest to keep it up to date, especially those who dislike cleanup patches. > Is this really such a major issue? If you don't want cleanup patches, > just politely refuse them and point people at drivers/staging/ where I > will gladly take them. It's not tough at all. > It isn't tough or an issue for me, but I don't normally refuse cleanup patches either. > Or better yet, take Julia's advice, and just fix up your subsystem to > not need these patches at all. That should take all of an afternoon's > worth of effort at most, drivers/scsi/ notwithstanding, that beast is > horrid... > Yes, that is what I am doing once in a while, if I need a timeout from other work. Since I don't mind cleanup patches, so I would set the tag to 'yes' for all files where I am listed as maintainer. But other maintainers do actively reject cleanup patches, sometimes with less then friendly words. Without a tag, the result is to discourage cleanup patches in general, or what I would call the lowest common denominator. While I understand and accept that other maintainers dislike cleanup patches, I don't see why I should have to suffer the consequences. Guenter