swarren at wwwdotorg.org
Thu Mar 9 12:56:49 PST 2017
On 03/09/2017 01:51 PM, Scott Branden wrote:
> Hi Julia,
> On 17-03-09 12:36 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> I discussed the issue of outreachy patches for bcm with Greg, and we are
>> not convinced that not having the patches CCd to you is such a good idea.
>> While we don't want to spam you with noise, some of the applicants are
>> starting to make more significant changes that it could be useful for you
>> to be aware of.
>> Could we try a compromise where you are not CCd on whitespace patches,
>> you are CCd on patches that actually modify the code?
> All I'm asking is you work through your outreachy patches internal first
> to get rid of the most basic mistakes and email traffic it is geerating.
> Once that learning process is through then they can be sent out like
> any other patches to the kernel mailing lists and maintainers.
+1 from me too; I find these patches rather high volume and had to add a
filter to keep them out of my primary inbox. I don't know what process
is in place, but I would suggest:
1) Senders send everything to the outreachy list, where they are
reviewed for basic issues, like learning to use git send-email, learning
checkpatch, etc. In this case, only send the patch to the outreachy
mailing list and nowhere else.
2) Once a patch has passed review there, then send the patch to the
regular kernel mailing list just like any other patch; follow the output
We have something like (1) inside NVIDIA for new contributors and
pre-upstreaming IP review. It helps all the newcomers, but without
requiring anyone involved in (2) to change behaviour.
The process I suggest is very much inline with the typically suggested
"asking questions" process: (1) read docs yourself (2) ask local
contacts for help, (3) start asking wider audiences for help.
More information about the linux-rpi-kernel