Re: RFE: use patchwork to submit a patch

[Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 09:19:11AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
>> This is basically why SMTP sucks in my view -- and it's worthless 
>> trying to
>> pick fights with IT departments, because they are told to do so by lawyers.
>> So, I want to take SMTP out of the equation:
>>
>> 1. provide a way for someone to submit a patch using a web interface   (but
>> still in a way that From: is their corporate ID)
>
>If you do this, what happens when a maintainer/reviewer responds to that
>patch and says "looks good, but can you change X and resend it?"
>
>How will they get that message if it didn't go through their email
>system?  How will they be able to respond to it?

The magic of git and email headers. Only the initial submission will go 
out of this web service -- the follow-up is expected to arrive into 
their mailbox.

>> 2. use individual git feeds as a way to send out patches instead of   always
>> being secondary to SMTP
>
>Sending patches that way is one thing, the interaction based on those
>patches is another.
>
>Everyone needs to remember that only 1/3 of the patches submitted are
>applied.  The "normal" path of development is at least a review/resend
>cycle for submissions (2/3 of patches).  So that 2/3 can't be ignored as
>the "new/drive-by submissions" are probably more in that category than
>not.

Right, the idea is that the imaginary tool that is backed by 
public-inbox will use multiple sources of content:

- the mailing list repository
- individual developer feeds
- the person's imap folder

Anything that shows up in the individual feeds should have a 
corresponding entry in the mailing list repository, but the latter is 
also cryptographically signed and therefore end-to-end attestable.  
Mailing lists and SMTP continue to be the fallback delivery method for 
the vast majority of the content.

I expect to lay this out in more detail as I prepare the "kthul MVP" 
roadplan.

-K