On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 5:28 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 12:17:08AM +0900, Hector Martin wrote: > > On 29/11/2022 23.34, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > On 29/11/2022 15:00, Hector Martin wrote: > > >> On 29/11/2022 20.36, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > >> Please, let's introspect about this for a moment. Something is deeply > > >> broken if people with 25+ years being an arch maintainer can't get a > > > > > > If arch maintainer sends patches which does not build (make > > > dt_binding_check), then what do you exactly expect? Accept them just > > > because it is 25+ years of experience or a maintainer? So we have > > > difference processes - for beginners code should compile. For > > > experienced people, it does not have to build because otherwise they > > > will get discouraged? > > > > I expect the process to not be so confusing and frustrating that a > > maintainer with 25+ years of experience gives up. That the bindings > > didn't pass the checker is besides the point. People say the Linux > > kernel community is hostile to newbies. This issue proves it's not just > > newbies, the process is failing even experienced folks. > > IME, a lack of response is a bigger issue and more frustrating. > > > On that specific issue, any other functional open source project would > > have the binding checks be a CI bot, with a friendly message telling you > > what to do to fix it, and it would re-run when you push to the PR again, > > which is a *much* lower friction action than sending a whole new patch > > series out for review via email (if you don't agree with this, then > > you're not the average contributor - the Linux kernel is by far the > > scariest major open source project to contribute to, and I think most > > people would agree with me on that). > > We could probably add a $ci_provider job description to do that. In > fact, I did try that once[1]. The challenge would be what to run if > there's multiple maintainers doing something. Otherwise, it's a > maintainer creating their own thing which we have too much of already. Actually, turns out this pretty much already exists with my CI. I just had to turn on merge requests on the project. If anyone actually uses it, I'll have to tweak it to not do 'make dtbs_check' because that is really slow. And this all runs on my machines, so that is another issue. It already is just running it for patches on the list (which is a different CI job). Just create a MR here: https://gitlab.com/robherring/linux-dt/-/merge_requests Rob
