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 9CA91D93 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 16:18:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pl1-f179.google.com (mail-pl1-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DCE56D6 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 16:18:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl1-f179.google.com with SMTP id f97so1124281plb.5 for ; Thu, 06 Jun 2019 09:18:33 -0700 (PDT) To: James Bottomley , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <1559836116.15946.27.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: Bart Van Assche Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 09:18:30 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1559836116.15946.27.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Pull network and Patch Acceptance Consistency List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 6/6/19 8:48 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > 2) Patch Acceptance Consistency: At the moment, we have very different > acceptance criteria for patches into the various maintainer trees.=20 > Some of these differences are due to deeply held stylistic beliefs, but= > some could be more streamlined to give a more consistent experience to > beginners who end up doing batch fixes which cross trees and end up > more confused than anything else. I'm not proposing to try and unify > our entire submission process, because that would never fly, but I was > thinking we could get a few sample maintainer trees to give their > criteria and then see if we could get any streamlining. For instance, > SCSI has a fairly weak "match the current driver" style requirement, a > reasonably strong get someone else to review it requirement and the > usual good change log and one patch per substantive change requirement.= > Other subsystems look similar without the review requirement, some > have very strict stylistic requirements (reverse christmas tree, one > variable definition per line, etc). As I said, the goal wouldn't be to= > beat up on the unusual requirements but to see if we could agree some > global baselines that would at least make submission more uniform. Thank you James for having brought this up. I agree that more consistency for patch acceptance criteria would help. This would not only help beginners but also long-time contributors who contribute to multiple subsystems. Bart.