Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 07 Apr 2015 15:28:15 +0200 | From | Richard Weinberger <> | Subject | Re: about the flood of trivial patches and the Code of Conduct |
| |
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
| |