On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 11:45 AM Tom Talpey <tom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 9/29/2021 12:38 PM, Ralph Boehme wrote: > > Am 29.09.21 um 17:42 schrieb Jeremy Allison: > >> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 11:28:09AM -0400, Tom Talpey wrote: > >>> > >>> I completely agree that email is inefficient, but git is a terrible > >>> way to have a discussion. Agreed > >> Maybe send the initial patch to the list with a link > >> to the github MR so people interested in reviewing/discussing > >> can follow along there ? > > > > well, if I could have it the way I wanted, then this would be it. But I > > understand that adopting new workflows is not something I can impose -- > > at least not without paying for an insane amount of Lakritz-Gitarren > > that I tend to use to bribe metze into doing something I want him to do. :) > > I'm in for github if you send me some too! gitnub is fine for many things, and we can automated "kernel development process" things presumably with github easier than alternatives: - running "scripts/checkpatch" - make with C=1 and "_CHECK_ENDIAN" support turned on - kick off smbtorture tests (as Namjae already does in his branches in github) BUT ... we have to ensure a couple things. - we don't annoy Linus (and linux-next and stable maintainers) by doing things like web merges in github (he complained about the meaningless/distracting github web ui empty merge messages) - we don't miss reviewers in Linux who also want to see them on mailing lists (presumably some of fsdevel - ie more general patches that other fs developers outside smb world need to comment on) > > > > Once such a collaboratively worked on patchset stabilizes, it can of > > course again go to the mailing list. Makes sense -- Thanks, Steve
