From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) (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 5610214F87 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 15:33:17 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1692286398; x=1723822398; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date: message-id:mime-version; bh=LcI6DtqOvmLZ587BzqKhfQxcSmdVpaV8oBdzLDlmMz0=; b=AnTeWVO2Q+1AI1tCglTGYMparXgIP8Eq5Dxs4yRCfniPoWeMCoJ7+WAb x0IAQFRg6ziuayAZVV6I7GaF35El+ypa/NwON4ODau2+iwjwciPtx9h10 FUBuovsYi3asts+GxwxM1EZQ+jrmTGu5Jh8I0bUmQqssnp4+2ECF5251T 7rZgG9n/AdrLq/obqp5xyVGE3C97ywF8/wUVA2PXSu77HVfUecvVgGOov VtV3q+9AhxRNgK184wQO9s33vhAP4M6ClkYZ4iy4p8qOEEelJl5BL3jMb mRcopBePHUUrScuC94+1wP9LAdtu88z6/YNPW5/yPlDzWDPxFy0osWRov w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10805"; a="375625370" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.01,180,1684825200"; d="scan'208";a="375625370" Received: from fmsmga007.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.52]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Aug 2023 08:31:47 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10805"; a="737766032" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.01,180,1684825200"; d="scan'208";a="737766032" Received: from jnikula-mobl4.fi.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.237.66.162]) by fmsmga007-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Aug 2023 08:31:44 -0700 From: Jani Nikula To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Luis Chamberlain , Josef Bacik , ksummit@lists.linux.dev, Jeff Layton , Song Liu Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Maintainer burnout In-Reply-To: <20230817102210.0b17f985@gandalf.local.home> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo References: <20230816180808.GB2919664@perftesting> <87ttsx98ue.fsf@intel.com> <20230817102210.0b17f985@gandalf.local.home> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 18:31:37 +0300 Message-ID: <87lee98z3a.fsf@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Thu, 17 Aug 2023, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 15:00:57 +0300 > Jani Nikula wrote: > >> On Wed, 16 Aug 2023, Luis Chamberlain wrote: >> > In so far as making it possible to get b) to help, my current excitement >> > surrounds around what Song Liu mentioned to me at LSFMM and then >> > quickly demonstrated that the eBPF folks are doing with patchwork. >> > Get the patches to be tested automatically, and *immediately* >> > patch reviewers and maintainers can get feedback if something is not even >> > worth reviewing. >> >> I'm all for automated testing and CI, and all i915 patches get tested >> before merging. But requiring everything to pass before a human so much >> as looks at it can be incredibly demotivating for contributors. For >> example, if they polish the contribution, and take all corner cases into >> consideration to pass the tests... and then get told their design is all >> wrong and needs to be redone from scratch. It's a balance. >> > > For big new features, I agree. They shouldn't need to pass all tests. I > think anything that has an [RFC] subject should bypass the test > requirements. But I get a bunch of fixes patches, that fail tests all the > time. If you are sending a fix to something that causes a regression, the > maintainer should not be involved. Automated tests should be enough to tell > the submitter to go back and redo their patch. Agreed. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center