From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail1.matrix-vision.com ([78.47.19.71]:53397 "EHLO mail1.matrix-vision.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751065Ab2HOH3X (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2012 03:29:23 -0400 Message-ID: <502B50AE.5080000@matrix-vision.de> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:33:02 +0200 From: Michael Jones MIME-Version: 1.0 To: LMML CC: Laurent Pinchart , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Hans Verkuil , Manu Abraham , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?David_H=E4rdeman?= , Silvester Nawrocki , Jonathan Corbet , Guennadi Liakhovetski , Prabhakar Lad Subject: Re: Patches submitted via linux-media ML that are at patchwork.linuxtv.org References: <502A4CD1.1020108@redhat.com> <201208141546.19560.hverkuil@xs4all.nl> <502A6075.6070606@redhat.com> <1834028.kSBHul9iXV@avalon> In-Reply-To: <1834028.kSBHul9iXV@avalon> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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