Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Maintainer burnout

Mark Brown
2023-08-17T12:17:43Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1347 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 03:00:57PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2023, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote:

> > In so far as making it possible to get b) to help, my current excitement
> > surrounds around what Song Liu mentioned to me at LSFMM and then
> > quickly demonstrated that the eBPF folks are doing with patchwork.
> > Get the patches to be tested automatically, and *immediately*
> > patch reviewers and maintainers can get feedback if something is not even
> > worth reviewing.

> I'm all for automated testing and CI, and all i915 patches get tested
> before merging. But requiring everything to pass before a human so much
> as looks at it can be incredibly demotivating for contributors. For
> example, if they polish the contribution, and take all corner cases into
> consideration to pass the tests... and then get told their design is all
> wrong and needs to be redone from scratch. It's a balance.

Indeed, and you're relying on your test automation being robust, the
results being available promptly and the results being comprehensible if
people can't readily run the tests themselves. That said I read the
above as more providing results so people can look at them rather than
gating looking at things (eg, if everything is failing it's probably
fine to not bother) - that seems a lot more reasonable.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]