Re: Patches submitted via linux-media ML that are at patchwork.linuxtv.org

[Michael Jones <michael.jones@matrix-vision.de>]

On 08/14/2012 05:21 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Mauro,
>
> On Tuesday 14 August 2012 11:28:05 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>> Em 14-08-2012 10:46, Hans Verkuil escreveu:
>> That would work if the others would be doing the same. Unfortunately, other
>> usual developers don't do that: they send all patches under discussions as
>> "PATCH", making really hard to track what's ready for maintainer's review
>> and what isn't. As not-so-frequent contributors (trivial fixes people; users
>> submitting their bug fix patches; first time contributors) send their patch
>> as "PATCH". Those patches aren't typically picked by driver maintainers, so
>> the task of reviewing them is, unfortunately, typically done only by me.
>>
>>> So if I post a [PATCH] as opposed to an [RFC PATCH], then that means that
>>> I believe that the [PATCH] is ready for merging. If I should no longer
>>> do that, but make a pull request instead, then that needs to be stated
>>> very explicitly by you. Otherwise things will get very confusing.
>>
>> Yes, please post them as [RFC PATCH].
>>
>> Maybe the patches that are about to be sent though a pull request could
>> use something like [RFC FINAL] or [PATCH FINAL], but maybe doing that
>> would be just overkill.
>
> I post patches that I believe to be ready to be merged as "[PATCH]", even if I
> plan to push them through my tree later. "RFC" usually has a different
> meaning, I understand it as a work in progress on which comments would be
> appreciated.
>
> As new developers just post patches as "[PATCH]" (probably because that's
> git's default) we can't really change the meaning of that tag. We could ask
> developers who maintain their own git tree to use a different tag (something
> like "[PATCH FOR REVIEW]" for instance), but that won't work well if we need
> to cross-post to other mailing lists that follow a different standard.

As one of the "not-so-frequent" contributors, it's obvious to me why we 
(incorrectly?) use just [PATCH] for initial submissions. Partly because 
it's git's default. Partly because Documentation/SubmittingPatches 
describes this. The LinuxTV Wiki says to [1] ("RFC" is nowhere on this 
page). There are many parts of protocol here that may just be obvious to 
the regulars, but documentation-by-mailing-list is a frustrating and 
error-prone way to have to glean the guidelines before submission. If 
this thread leads to new agreed-upon guidelines, could someone please 
update [1] to reflect whatever the consensus is?  It would be 
appropriate to at least mention 'git send-email' there, too.

-Michael

[1] http://linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/Development:_How_to_submit_patches


MATRIX VISION GmbH, Talstrasse 16, DE-71570 Oppenweiler
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 271090
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Gerhard Thullner, Werner Armingeon, Uwe Furtner, Erhard Meier