RFE: use patchwork to submit a patch

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 05:35:53PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 09:23:08PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> > > (This is the same reason I generally disagree with Eric Wong about
> > > preserving SMTP as the primary transmission protocol -- I've heard lots of
> > > complaints both from kernel developers and especially from people trying to
> > > contribute to CAF about corporate policies actually making it impossible to
> > > submit patches -- and no, using a different mail server is not a possibility
> > > for them because it can be a firing offense under their IT AUP rules.)
> > 
> > I'm not opposed to a webmail interface tailored to kernel hacking
> > which does stuff like checkpatch.pl and get_maintainer.pl before
> > sending (similar to your patchwork proposal and
> > gitgadgetgadget).  That would get around security appliances
> > but SMTP would still be used in the background.
> > 
> > Or offer full-blown HTTPS webmail + IMAP + SMTP access like any
> > other webmail provider + checkpatch + get_maintainer helpers.
> 
> Well, this is the bit where I say that it may not be allowed by corporate
> rules. I see this all the time in CAF/Android world where companies
> *require* that all email goes through their SMTP server so that it can be
> properly logged (often for legal reasons). And it is often equally required
> that any code submissions come from person at corporate.com and not
> person at free-email-provider.com for License/CLA reasons, so setting up a
> webmail server is not a solution either.
> 
> This is basically why SMTP sucks in my view -- and it's worthless trying to
> pick fights with IT departments, because they are told to do so by lawyers.
> So, I want to take SMTP out of the equation:
> 
> 1. provide a way for someone to submit a patch using a web interface   (but
> still in a way that From: is their corporate ID)

If you do this, what happens when a maintainer/reviewer responds to that
patch and says "looks good, but can you change X and resend it?"

How will they get that message if it didn't go through their email
system?  How will they be able to respond to it?

> 2. use individual git feeds as a way to send out patches instead of   always
> being secondary to SMTP

Sending patches that way is one thing, the interaction based on those
patches is another.

Everyone needs to remember that only 1/3 of the patches submitted are
applied.  The "normal" path of development is at least a review/resend
cycle for submissions (2/3 of patches).  So that 2/3 can't be ignored as
the "new/drive-by submissions" are probably more in that category than
not.

thanks,

greg k-h