Re: about the flood of trivial patches and the Code of Conduct (was: Re: [PATCH 19/25] sched: Use bool function return values of true/false not 1/0)

Peter Zijlstra
2015-04-07T11:27:42Z

On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 01:18:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:12:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Pointing out this truth and protecting against such abusive flood of
> > > trivial patches is not against the code of conduct I signed.
> >
> > I totally agree, it's not "against" the code of conflict that I
> > helped write.
> >
> > Joe, you know better than to send trivial stuff to maintainers who
> > don't want it. Send it through the trivial maintainer for
> > subsystems that have expressed annoyance at this, it's not the first
> > time this has happened.
>
> I argue that they should not be sent _at all_ in such cases, not even
> via the trivial tree: firstly because typically I'll pick up the bits
> from the trivial tree as well, and secondly because most of the
> arguments I listed against bulk trivial commits (weaker bisectability,
> taking up reviewer bandwidth, taking up Git space, etc.) still stand.

I agree, I do not want actual code changes to by-pass me for the
subsystems I'm responsible for.

Typoes in comments I can live with, but I want to see each and every
patch that changes actual code.