From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BCA647A894 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2026 13:34:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786109679; cv=none; b=KVHxsbHIiP+Gp6e7ZFQ0ctAs3SyZvjKURgk1nhpD79V8OszZUrDHp34y/fxeE6mnumGfz62WDxRFs5ZHRsFewXgu4Rk4jEqOEgCwNftYrcSwnRGsIM8GyhoTnvBn88at2fDQrOTwURUt2pTWrc/ZFxxboaE4oVE8T1CMKdTb7u0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786109679; c=relaxed/simple; bh=eFeYVq0z2jxs/nOaFRr+kFuY49EYbvyg369USkMewUY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=AjuVi4JgQKEePQpJekFna+sCkslUzB3wfp+vHofN8p4uUEoUUgM1X9p2Bt/qf/rmj2ysLH9EKYwTSa5g+d05S/GAmH/cZ7mQSBwXyMGYR4VvSzjg96QAe15X7Zj+9Y/ifR6RHuKA+yZ+xw4cB9bRWPfagBOG/gynOhVxGRhe5oU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b=i6xUzDw6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="i6xUzDw6" Received: from killaraus.ideasonboard.com (2001-14ba-70f3-e800--a06.rev.dnainternet.fi [IPv6:2001:14ba:70f3:e800::a06]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8892F517; Fri, 7 Aug 2026 15:33:19 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1786109599; bh=eFeYVq0z2jxs/nOaFRr+kFuY49EYbvyg369USkMewUY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=i6xUzDw64evrO24ABVizAFJF0ZyuhlOkUQoKD8gxqI4FS2s2v9MQnSWhiKREQ7QxO F3B77Bp+N+GpU6mlJnMg86NDGGalrs0T+rlaCipy3kO87YJvMD2HmCzKcvkjoroQ89 7a/Mttc3iwDugbjU/QoWmHoGyIWorj3nfn5lXx6k= Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2026 16:34:30 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: James Bottomley Cc: Matthieu Baerts , Theodore Tso , Dan Carpenter , Konstantin Ryabitsev , Greg KH , Jonathan Corbet , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Coping with the new-developer flood Message-ID: <20260807133430.GN2201016@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> References: <2026080651-bony-hertz-bfb6@gregkh> <20260806-industrious-whippet-of-jest-a91eaa@meerkat> <78ee9f53-09b1-4934-82af-25f3652b108a@kernel.org> <20260807115603.GH2201016@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <04b4e9abab2831b177228752860bedab1f15a736.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20260807124017.GK2201016@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <9190410e0173138f9cc95e6e7f68c4ca14b2d333.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <9190410e0173138f9cc95e6e7f68c4ca14b2d333.camel@HansenPartnership.com> On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 08:51:50AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote: > On Fri, 2026-08-07 at 15:40 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 08:28:08AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote: > [...] > > > There are two reasons not to insist too rigidly on base commit: > > > firstly because a lot of series are invariant (they apply to any > > > tree because there's been no commits in the areas patched) > > > > Then the author could pick any base commit available in Linus' tree > > the relevant subsystem tree (typically an upstream release of the > > next branch of the subsystem). Would that have any drawback compared > > to not specifying any base commit at all ? > > It's just pointless hassle given the maintainer workflow is ignore the > base commit and do git (or b4) am on the current branch and only if > that rejects either try and upport based on the base commit or ask for > a respin (the latter being the most common course of action). > > > > and secondly because the series has a dependency on another posted > > > but not yet applied patch series (i.e. no published base commit at > > > all).  At least make it a Maintainer decision whether to insist on > > > base commit or not. > > > > Isn't that what prerequisite-patch-id is for ? > > Dear god, absolutely not. I can't match a patch hash to a series, I > want the lore link of the prerequisite series in the cover letter. I thought lore was indexable by patch-id as well, maybe I'm mistaken. If that's not the case, it could be a useful feature. The message-id of a prerequisite series is certainly better. There's apparently a b4 trailer for that, prerequisite-message-id. See [1] for an example. I don't know how automated, or automatable, adding that trailer is. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20260805-tegra264-pcie-v9-0-fa2ed7350ae1@nvidia.com/ -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart