Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches

[Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 09:29:16AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 14:34:53 +0300
> Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > > This is not a matter of bad practice. There are a couple of reasons
> > > why each patch on a series will have a different group of Cc, like:
> > > 
> > > 	- driver maintainers for each patch may be different;
> > > 	- scripts/get_maintainers.pl will return a different Cc/To;
> > > 	- patch series touch different subsystems;  
> > 
> > Like Christoph said, if it is unrelated send the patches as separated
> > series.

<...>

> Please, just Cc me on code that touches something I maintain or listed as
> a reviewer (which is still a lot).

Actually, we are drifting into another interesting topic to discuss.
"How to make life of patch submitters easy?" The difference in
maintainer's preferences, mailing list rules, e.t.c makes submission
process unbelievably painful.

<...>

> > I'm pretty happy with my email flow and see a little value in reconstruction
> > of emails thread with b4 just to realize that the series is not important to me.
> 
> It's not b4 you need. I seldom use that (but perhaps I should start). But
> lore is really easy. My email client, by default, shows the message id of
> the email I'm looking at. If I want to know more, I copy that message id,
> open a browser, and type:
> 
>  lore.kernel.org/r/<message-id>
> 
> Hit enter, and boom! the entire thread is there!
> 
> Try it!

I'm using lorifier on daily basis.

> 
> > 
> > It also don't solve my "knowledge island" issue.
> 
> I believe lore does.

Did you try to follow netdev and MM with lore only?

Thanks

> 
> -- Steve