outreachy

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:15:21PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 03/09/2017 01:20 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 01:56:49PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On 03/09/2017 01:51 PM, Scott Branden wrote:
> >>> Hi Julia,
> >>>
> >>> On 17-03-09 12:36 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >>>> Hello,
> >>>>
> >>>> 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,
> >>>> but
> >>>> 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.
> > 
> > Hah!  That's the joy of being a maintainer of a driver in staging.  Even
> > if you filter out outreachy, you are going to get a lot of "basic
> > mistakes" and other type patches cc:ed to you.
> > 
> > I strongly suggest, that if you all don't like this type of stuff,
> > either:
> > 	- work to get the code out of staging as soon as possible (i.e.
> > 	  send me coding style fixes for everything right now, and then
> > 	  fix up the rest of the stuff.)
> > 	- take yourself off the maintainer list for this code.
> 
> Keep in mind that most people on this CC list are getting these patches
> because of the bcm283* regular expression, and maybe that's what needs
> fixing here in the first place.

Yes, I suggest the someone fixes that if they do not wish to get these
types of emails.  Having a regex like that in MAINTAINERS is very crazy,
from another thread I don't think it's really doing what you all want it
to do (meaning it's hitting a lot more files than expected.)

> > It's your choice, outreachy right now is a lot of patches, but again,
> > it's not going to keep you from getting the "basic" stuff sent to you
> > in ways that is totally wrong.
> 
> That is absolutely true, but the thing is that we really got a big spike
> of patch submissions lately, and that was totally not accepted. I am not
> asking for a "heads-up" email telling people that they are going to
> receive more traffic than usual (because that would be too much over
> head), but if there was an internal review first on the outreachy
> mailing-list and second a proper submission which is going to pass your
> acceptance criteria, we would be de facto reducing the amount of emails
> that we received.
> 
> The outreachy list obviously has people like you and Julia who are
> willing to help and provide feedback, so I really don't see what's the
> problem in setting up a two tier review here, it does not change
> anything for you, but it does change a lot for us.

Again, even if outreachy isn't happening, you are still going to be
getting these types of patches from all of the "normal" people that send
staging cleanup patches.  So it's not going to buy you all that much of
a reprieve.

So please send in a MAINTAINERS patch if you don't wish to get these
kinds of patches.  Or, again, just spend a day and send me cleanup
patches to keep anyone else from needing to send in basic checkpatch
fixes for this code.

thanks,

greg k-h