Re: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: Require base tree information

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 26/10/2026 11:40, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 08:57:55AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> That's valid and for 95% (guessing the number...) of cases will be
>> solved by having linux-next as a base, thus requiring the base
>> information is redundant. It's just linux-next.
>>
>> When patchset does NOT apply on linux-next or maintainer tree is
>> non-obvious, the base should be provided, but that is only "if ->
>> should". I think the proposal here is a bit different.
> 
> What's the downside though ? As git can easily provide the base
> information once configured to do so, what's the downside of asking
> contributors to include it ?

For me the downside is that if you require it, half or more of my
patches would be rejected and I would need to add unnecessary step to
remember. Since this step is pointless - it would be linux-next
(assuming in the first place that this is what the author wanted here!)
- it is a waste of time for me and potential resubmit of series, just to
fulfill requirement which brings no benefits. So I have downside and I
see no upside for my case, when you require the base.

This might be affecting others as well, but now speaking about my
workflow - I have a lot of independent cleanups, which I stack on top of
each other, sometimes series, sometimes not, but stacking is important
so when I run `make W=1` it passes.

What's more important, I reject the entire reasoning/cause of this
change, which claimed you cannot review and therefore accept such
patches. It's simply not true.

So please come with proper reasoning and then maybe even it would be
fine to require the tag. But if reasoning is not correct, changing
policy is not right.

Best regards,
Krzysztof