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 60CBE282 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:27:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51382112 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:27:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:27:39 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall To: James Bottomley In-Reply-To: <1437376105.8968.14.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Message-ID: References: <20150716094720.2bf9f5ac@gandalf.local.home> <55A7C7FE.6000604@sonymobile.com> <20150716094125.16cdda73@lwn.net> <1437063875.18768.59.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <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> <1437376105.8968.14.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: 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 Mon, 20 Jul 2015, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2015-07-20 at 00:19 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > [ ... snip ... ] > > > But that was an exception because the code submitted was really worth > > > while > > > > This really made me wonder. Maybe we should really focus on why such > > ocasions need to be pointed out as exceptions. > > > > Is it that Linux kernel development got hyped so much that everyone wants > > to have that bullet in his CV, no matter how stupid the submitted patch > > would be? > > > > If so, what should we do to change it? > > > > 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? > > I second. I think we concentrate too much on contribution and not > enough on useful contribution. > > > Should we stop publishing all the statistics? I believe there is no > > question that those are one of the primary drivers of useless submissions. > > Once maintainers get DoSed by submissions of wrong and/or useless patches > > that eat non-negligible amount of their time, we're in trouble. > > I'm not sure it's just the stats. We also have to be careful about > negative perceptions, so I don't think we want to go around highlighting > bad patches. There are a couple of patch sets that are draining review > talent from my point of view: the mechanical one file at a time fixing > X. I think we need someone to be the gatekeeper and review and apply > the script in one go. And perhaps we should call the other "small > patches which don't fix bugs" ... I'm less sure what to do about these. 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. julia