From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ed1-f44.google.com (mail-ed1-f44.google.com [209.85.208.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C94B11C98 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2023 16:36:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-f44.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-523b066d7ceso2326058a12.2 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2023 09:36:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux-foundation.org; s=google; t=1692463008; x=1693067808; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xZ399YqUKXNCuUQKkIutHLFmLwZABYD5nu1OifYAj0c=; b=GSxOP++BMGJk0rcnLNyDcJA7Q6+KiYTynLNbrXrqQQkP7s4vT2PsC9RsS3RkuifsoZ FJWaQVwuxohvmcTM+Cxy4jXmNEVN+wWgaygfA7imrxpvZDxVYaclCxrsNkNIzhlw/SF/ Ja35RousEFbGkPXWa+7uGmsRBLJ9BLk/3+wWY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1692463008; x=1693067808; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=xZ399YqUKXNCuUQKkIutHLFmLwZABYD5nu1OifYAj0c=; b=b5CiPNAMnwGBVQOcHIbWDMN+UUMd1e7pqG0fwmnstUFv36Cdr+zBZe0enPtD9+yqgr /JcfrKUgEkUCiXiadl6ZGpvqUFLvRUeeKn83Sv7Ti+2VKQaFl90fHvaQqWDJNOZoancd XOejlSAtbU7qAUtJL9Px01Y0A6PxBLcXBuhYLeqr1U3XrvLEr7tLa+gfCM8+dvH2y9Cf mcncPNlpVuualnQKzXfdkw376pFg5CukdP8fdnkGN8M0NJ+R/tIMq8fSjCHmDt4PHo/X qtVf09+kxfaZKG/QPYOLQT+qm8M/ftQdWa/y28ed8Gqwlm1S2nWo3tWt3OyPVdr4Pc+8 qYIA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yyfe3Wv3T594adHrazi9208xkAtHD9yrtStPuBO3wWy0q6BbqpU Q7Gz0ebfxU69vdU4sqEJKE0YbnA9GUQa6T0Tj/QqwJet X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGjthYTPhx9JS3QOudzt3xtgp3H6e/RebbPNkJfghW8M3aq+mxg3Mwk2vNfSyASHyTdINo0qQ== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d651:0:b0:525:bbc0:2a8c with SMTP id v17-20020aa7d651000000b00525bbc02a8cmr1832688edr.33.1692463007852; Sat, 19 Aug 2023 09:36:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ej1-f54.google.com (mail-ej1-f54.google.com. [209.85.218.54]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j21-20020aa7ca55000000b0052596c88941sm2796350edt.39.2023.08.19.09.36.46 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 19 Aug 2023 09:36:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-f54.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-99bf8e5ab39so255573366b.2 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2023 09:36:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:2921:b0:99c:f966:9ea2 with SMTP id v1-20020a170906292100b0099cf9669ea2mr1587234ejd.25.1692463006695; Sat, 19 Aug 2023 09:36:46 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Linus Torvalds Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2023 18:36:29 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Transparency when rejecting patches without technical reason To: Wolfram Sang Cc: ksummit@lists.linux.dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 at 18:22, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > I hope you understood that my wish for transparency was not about > discussing if the patches should have gone in or not. It is about > discussing or at least stating which reasons we have for not accepting > patches. I don't think there is any value at all in discussing hypotheticals. But I will say that the next time some has-been superpower ends up with a premier that goes crazy and starts attacking other countries, we'll do the same thing. So that's certainly _one_ reason to not take patches. But let's hope that one reason ends up never being relevant again, and as such not really worth discussing (and it's sure as hell not worth debating). And other reasons? I don't think most people had "Russia ends up going rogue, so kernel developers stop taking patches from state-sponsored actors" on their bingo card in 2021. I certainly didn't. So unless you have a crystal ball and can predict what the next event that would cause us to not accept patches would look like, what is there to discuss? That's kind of my point. The Russian situation isn't worth discussing - anybody who wants to debate it is simply not anybody I want to spend one second debating *with*. And any future situation is so hypothetical as to not seemingly be worth discussing either, unless you have some inside information. We'll have to take them as they come, and the best we can probably do is to just hope we don't ever see anything similar in the future. Linus