RFE: use patchwork to submit a patch

Steven Rostedt rostedt at goodmis.org
Fri Oct 25 00:58:39 AEDT 2019

On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:33:04 +0200
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 3:15 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt at goodmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 18:39:18 +0300
> > Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart at ideasonboard.com> wrote:

> Purely theoretically let's consider that the changes do not improve
> _your_ efficiency, but they significantly improve overall project
> efficiency by positively affecting people who did not develop a
> workflow over the past decades (maybe there were not around 2 decades
> ago) and positively affecting various tooling that _you_ may be
> directly interested in, but otherwise they are important for the
> project overall. So for you it's no change in efficiency except that
> you now need to do things differently. What do you think about such
> changes? Are you ready to force yourself? :)
> I think it's quite cornerstone question here. All (?) major figures in
> the kernel (who are ~~98% of decision making, but ~~2% of kernel
> developers overall) have developed workflows over the past decades
> that work reasonably well for them. If they veto all proposed changes
> based on the criteria you described, every new contributor will need
> decades to develop own workflows to become an efficient contributor
> and lots of tooling will be painfully hard to do.

The above sound like a one size fits all approach, which I would caste
a veto to. I would like a solution that works for multiple workflows.
One where mine and others still work too.

Please, lets work on a infrastructure that is robust and flexible, that
is split into back and front ends. That way, we have a single "back
end" and multiple front ends that suite everyone's needs.

-- Steve

More information about the Patchwork mailing list