On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 04:03:59PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 21:59:24 +0100 Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > The only thing that delayed them was your eventual comments about > > re-working how it was being done. Yet again, posting the RFC series > > created very little in the way of feedback. I'm getting to the point > > of thinking its a waste of time posting RFC patches - it's counter > > productive. RFC means "request for comments" but it seems that many > > interpret it as "I can ignore it". > > I'm afraid you are correct. Dave used to occasionally apply RFC patches > which kept reviewers on their toes a little bit (it kept me for sure). > These days patchwork automatically marks patches as RFC based on > the subject, tossing them out of "Action required" queue. So they are > extremely easy to ignore. > > Perhaps an alternative way of posting would be to write "RFC only, > please don't apply" at the end of the cover letter. Maybe folks will > at least get thru reading the cover letter then :S Again, expressing complaints to me for responding late is misdirected frustration. The fact that I chose to leave my comments only when Russell gave up on waiting for feedback from Andrew doesn't mean I ignored his RFC patches, it just means I didn't want to add noise and ask for minor changes when it wasn't clear that this is the overall final direction that the series would follow. I still have preferences about the way in which this patch set gets accepted, and now seems like the proper moment to express them.
