Re: about the flood of trivial patches and the Code of Conduct

From: Richard Weinberger
Date: Tue Apr 07 2015 - 07:50:41 EST

Am 07.04.2015 um 13:32 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 01:28:27PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Can't we send all these kind of patches through the trivial tree?
>> Don't get me wrong, if you are fine with these patches that's you decision.
>> But other maintainers might think they have to take these patches and
>> get overloaded. I'm thinking of drivers maintainers that can only work
>> one or two hours per week on Linux.
>> Not everyone works full time on it like you.
>> I propose to send all this stuff though the trivial tree such that maintainers
>> of other subsystems have less workload and newbies (which are supposed
>> to send such patches) know which tree they have to work against.
>> Let's have to well defined and ordered. :-)
> As per the other branch of this tree; an emphatic NO to that. The
> trivial tree is not a backdoor to bypass maintainers. Actual code
> changes do not get to go through any tree but the maintainer tree unless
> explicitly ACKed.

I agree that the series in question is useless.
But if a patch is trivial it can go through the trivial tree.
By trivial I really mean *trivial* in terms of typos
and 80 character limit crap.
It has to be something which does not hurt and the maintainer
can safely ignore.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at