Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: unisys: Modify boolean assignment

[Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@gmail.com>]

On 02/20/16 18:30, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 01:10:15PM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> On 02/17/16 13:03, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:59:49PM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>>>> You also need to CC the driver author, not just the outreachy list.
>>>
>>> For the outreachy application process, the author doesn't need to be
>>>  cc:ed, but they can be if the patch author wants to.
>>
>> If the patches are dropped and not pushed upstream, please ignore CC's,
>> sure. If they are meant to go upstream, the author must be CC'ed.
>>
>> I for one find it really annoying and rude to have patches go into
>> upstream for code I actively maintain, without being CC'ed on them.
> 
> That happens all the time, and is just the way things have always been
> for kernel changes.  Maintainership isn't "absolute" ownership, you know
> this :)

Of course, however it's common courtesy to CC a maintainer. If the code
has been untouched for a long time, sure, but if it's actively being
developed that is a different story.

>> I know Unisys is trying to fix up their code, and knowing conflicting
>> patches are in flight saves work.
> 
> These should all be trivial to work around, and really, if they were
> trying to fix up their code, they would have already resolved "trivial"
> changes like this a long time ago.

It really depends, checkpatch claims errors on a lot of things that
aren't broken in the first place. It is also a question of what to fix
first, real bugs or moving commas around. Either way, this is no excuse
for not being courteous and CC'ing the maintainer on the changes.

Jes