Re: rfc: trivial patches and slow deaths?

[Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>]

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.

> Send 6+ 1 line patches that do the same thing to
> individual maintainers?

If it's important send it to Andrew Morton.

> The next release in a couple/few weeks is 3.11.
> 3.12 should take 2.5/3 months for a typical cycle.
> 
> Patches bound for 3.12 should be in -next today.
> 
> 3.13 should be out in about half a year.
> 
> Is it really appropriate to delay the trivially
> obvious for sixish months?

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

Rob