On 04/07/2015 07:18 AM, 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.
And requires backports for -stable. Regards, Peter Hurley -- 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/
