Hi all,
I've been collecting trivial patches for a few months now, and
it's time to solidify some rules:
1) Trivial patches must qualify for one of the following to be
accepted:
a) Spelling fixes (useful for grep, and sets a good example)
b) Warning fixes (cluttering with useless warnings is bad)
c) Compilation fixes (only if they are actually correct)
d) Runtime fixes (only if they actually fix things)
e) Removing use of deprecated functions/macros (eg. check_region).
f) Contact detail and documentation fixes
g) Non-portable code replaced by portable code
(even in arch-specific, since people copy, as long as it's trivial)
h) Any fix by the author/maintainer of the file.
(ie. patch monkey in re-transmission mode)
They must also be "trivial" by my definition of trivial. Best
patches contain enough context for me to judge without opening the
file (diff -C<nn> -u is your friend).
NOTE: This means I'll only take whitespace/indentation fixes from
the author or maintainer.
2) The patch will not be forwarded to anyone until a new kernel has
been released after I receive the patch, *unless* noone else is
sent the patch. So if you cc: the trivial patch monkey, it'll only
be forwarded from there if it doesn't make the next kernel.
3) The first time the patch is forwarded, it will be sent to the
author and/or maintainer. If they say they've included it in their
tree, no more forwards will occur (modulo some timeout eventually).
If they NAK it, the patch will be closed. Otherwise, the patch
will be sent directly to Linus or Marcelo on future forwards (the
maintainer will still be cc'd).
Hopefully this will be a good compromise between coordinating with
maintainers who want control of their files, and stopping trivial
patches from slipping through the cracks.
Cheers!
Rusty, aka the Trivial Patch Monkey.
--
Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 05:07:05PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> 2) The patch will not be forwarded to anyone until a new kernel has
> been released after I receive the patch, *unless* noone else is
> sent the patch. So if you cc: the trivial patch monkey, it'll only
> be forwarded from there if it doesn't make the next kernel.
What happens in this case..
person a sends the monkey a patch.
person b replies to l-k (cc'ing monkey) with a "no do it this way" ?
do you have a hand-operated means to say "this patch supercedes the
previous" ?
> 3) The first time the patch is forwarded, it will be sent to the
> author and/or maintainer. If they say they've included it in their
> tree, no more forwards will occur (modulo some timeout eventually).
> If they NAK it, the patch will be closed. Otherwise, the patch
> will be sent directly to Linus or Marcelo on future forwards (the
> maintainer will still be cc'd).
What would be *really* good, for the case where retransmits are
necessary, if Alan hasn't picked it up for 2.4 (or me for 2.5),
you could add us to the relevant Cc's, (and remove after Alan/Myself
takes it).
This could however get tricky, as the same patch may need a bit
of hand-merging to fit against -ac/-dj.
Maybe just simpler to remove us when Alan/I send an ACK ?
> Hopefully this will be a good compromise between coordinating with
> maintainers who want control of their files, and stopping trivial
> patches from slipping through the cracks.
Indeed. It's been a really useful effort, and has picked up
a lot of the smaller bits which have saved me having to push those
to Linus, leaving me free to concentrate on some of the larger bits.
Dave
--
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs
In message <[email protected]> you write:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 05:07:05PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > 2) The patch will not be forwarded to anyone until a new kernel has
> > been released after I receive the patch, *unless* noone else is
> > sent the patch. So if you cc: the trivial patch monkey, it'll only
> > be forwarded from there if it doesn't make the next kernel.
>
> What happens in this case..
>
> person a sends the monkey a patch.
> person b replies to l-k (cc'ing monkey) with a "no do it this way" ?
>
> do you have a hand-operated means to say "this patch supercedes the
> previous" ?
Yes, I close the old patch, and add the new one. Low-tech, I know 8).
The original person will get a one-liner on why the patch was closed
(like, "obsoleted by new patch").
> > 3) The first time the patch is forwarded, it will be sent to the
> > author and/or maintainer. If they say they've included it in their
> > tree, no more forwards will occur (modulo some timeout eventually).
> > If they NAK it, the patch will be closed. Otherwise, the patch
> > will be sent directly to Linus or Marcelo on future forwards (the
> > maintainer will still be cc'd).
>
> What would be *really* good, for the case where retransmits are
> necessary, if Alan hasn't picked it up for 2.4 (or me for 2.5),
> you could add us to the relevant Cc's, (and remove after Alan/Myself
> takes it).
Hmmm, but it also adds the "multiple path to Linus problem" (yeah, I
could use BK, and I could start using Borland compilers too).
I currently don't track -ac and -dj trees at all, so I'd have to add
them. It's certainly possible.
> This could however get tricky, as the same patch may need a bit
> of hand-merging to fit against -ac/-dj.
That's something I've simply refused to get into: patches either apply
or they don't. With about 40 patches a week and other
responsibilities, I rely on the author seeing that something broke and
retransmitting.
> Maybe just simpler to remove us when Alan/I send an ACK ?
In total, I'm not convinced it's worth the effort.
Rusty.
--
Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.