Re: about the flood of trivial patches and the Code of Conduct

Richard Weinberger
2015-04-07T13:28:24Z

Am 07.04.2015 um 15:21 schrieb Steven Rostedt:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 01:50:31PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>>
>>> As per the other branch of this tree; an emphatic NO to that. The
>>> trivial tree is not a backdoor to bypass maintainers. Actual code
>>> changes do not get to go through any tree but the maintainer tree unless
>>> explicitly ACKed.
>>
>> I agree that the series in question is useless.
>> But if a patch is trivial it can go through the trivial tree.
>
> Only if they received an Acked-by from the maintainer of the code that
> it touches. That way, Peter does see the code that is changing. He doesn't
> need to take it through his tree, but the trivial maintainer must get his
> Acked-by, which shows that he did actually take a look at the patch and is
> fine with it going through another route.
>
>
>> By trivial I really mean *trivial* in terms of typos
>> and 80 character limit crap.
>
> Egad no. The 80 character limit is a guideline not set in stone. There's so
> many times I see people break up lines to avoid that limit and make the
> code uglier and more difficult to read. Again, that's a trivial change that
> would do more harm than good.

That's why i named it crap. :D

>> It has to be something which does not hurt and the maintainer
>> can safely ignore.
>
> I think the only change that could probably go in without an ack from the
> maintainer is a change that Peter already mentioned. Typos in comments that
> do not touch the actual code.

Agreed.

Thanks,
//richard