Re: rfc: trivial patches and slow deaths?

Joe Perches
2013-08-20T22:11:18Z

On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 16:49 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 08/20/2013 03:14:10 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 15:02 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > On 08/19/2013 04:27:17 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 23:22 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2013, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > This is a 7 line patch that corrects logging defects that has
> > had
> > > > no
> > > > > > reply from you for the last month.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2833648/
> > > > >
> > > > > This hasn't missed any Linus' major release, as it has been
> > > > submitted post
> > > > > 3.11 merge, right? (hint, that was Jul 4th).
> > > > >
> > > > > If this would miss *next* major Linus' release, I would accept
> > your
> > > > > complaints. But this is definitely not the case.
> > > >
> > > > You're suggesting this patch, which corrects obvious
> > > > defects, should miss 3.12 and go into 3.13?
> > > >
> > > > I think that's wrong.
> > >
> > > Correcting obvious defects, which can't wait a release, is "trivial"
> > > now, is it?
> >
> > Rob, how do you suggest this obvious and trivial
> > patch be handled?
>
> Obvious != trivial. They're orthogonal.

Silly. Some things are both obvious _and_ trivial.

> > Send 6+ 1 line patches that do the same thing to
> > individual maintainers?
>
> If it's important send it to Andrew Morton.

Andrew? Do you want to handle patches for defects that
are both obvious _and_ trivial?

> If it's trivial it's not time critical. If it's time critical it's not
> trivial.

We disagree on the definition of trivial.
Trivial can also mean simple and immediately evident.