On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:06:17AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 09:35 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 07:48:59AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > The main point is that patches shouldn't be applied without > > > > > being submitted to a more widely read list. > > > > > > > > I take the blame for any problems with Outreachy patches. > > > > > > Are you going to change any procedure associated to these > > > Outreachy patches? > > > > 2 bugs out of 900? Nah, I think that's good odds. > > > > Also, the outreachy patch process would overwhelm everyone else on the > > list, it's really high volume during the application phase, I'd prefer > > it to stick with the mentors that wish to help out with the process. If > > you and/or Dan, or anyone else wishes to help out with this, I would > > really appreciate it. But I don't think that forcing them to post to > > the driverdevel list is a good idea. > > I don't think that's necessary, but sending them to any > listed maintainer should be. > > If you're collecting them, I suggest you stick them in > a separate branch, post them to your driverdev list and > cc the appropriate maintainers, wait a week, then apply > them to your main branch. > > You already batch post hundreds of patches for kernel > x.y.z stable branches. What's another few hundred? > Stable patches is a totally different workflow from my "normal" kernel patch acceptance work. I'll consider changing something for the future outreachy application process. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
