Re: rfc: trivial patches and slow deaths?

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 15:02 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 08/19/2013 04:27:17 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 23:22 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2013, Joe Perches wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is a 7 line patch that corrects logging defects that has had  
> > no
> > > > reply from you for the last month.
> > > >
> > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2833648/
> > >
> > > This hasn't missed any Linus' major release, as it has been  
> > submitted post
> > > 3.11 merge, right? (hint, that was Jul 4th).
> > >
> > > If this would miss *next* major Linus' release, I would accept your
> > > complaints. But this is definitely not the case.
> > 
> > You're suggesting this patch, which corrects obvious
> > defects, should miss 3.12 and go into 3.13?
> > 
> > I think that's wrong.
> 
> Correcting obvious defects, which can't wait a release, is "trivial"  
> now, is it?

Rob, how do you suggest this obvious and trivial
patch be handled?

Send 6+ 1 line patches that do the same thing to
individual maintainers?

The next release in a couple/few weeks is 3.11.
3.12 should take 2.5/3 months for a typical cycle.

Patches bound for 3.12 should be in -next today.

3.13 should be out in about half a year.

Is it really appropriate to delay the trivially
obvious for sixish months?