On Sat, 2016-09-24 at 19:45 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > It's purposeless, creates unnecessary patches to review > > and generally wastes other people's time. > I have got an other opinion about this. Nice for you, not nice for others that have to act on your patch proposals to get them forwarded upstream. > > Please don't purposefully waste other people's time. > I do not want to "waste" your time. When a chorus of voices says to you that you are wasting their time, perhaps you listen to their song. > > It makes your patch proposals _less_ likely to be applied. > The acceptance varies as usual. Usual for whom? It seems to me your patch proposals have a relatively high unapplied patch percentage and there is an increase in the number of upstream maintainers that ignore you. > I see also another option. > > * Can the first three update steps from this small patch series be integrated > while the fourth needs further adjustments (where I went a bit too far)? > > * Do you prefer to squash the last two update steps together? Yes, the overall number of patches should be minimized when the suggested patches are highly related. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
