On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 01:18:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
