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

[Mark Brown]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 11:48:16AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

> 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.

That's super common in platform enablement scenarios as well, for test
purposes people are often working on top of a base that's got a pile of
other stuff that they need to get the platform running but is off topic
for the series in question.  You can do something like manually override
the base but that tends to bitrot which can lead to other issues, and if
you forget to override it people can get upset that you've given them a
base they can't find.

It's definitely nice if people can include their base commit info but it
can be more trouble than it's worth.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature