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

Steven Rostedt
2015-04-07T13:21:33Z

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.

> 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.

-- Steve