On Sat, 2019-08-10 at 13:18 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Sat, 2019-08-10 at 12:44 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 12:32 PM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > What does it take for this sort of patch to be applied by you? > > > > The basic rule tends to be: "normal channels". > [] > > I pulled from Gustavo earlier today to add a few more expected switch > > fall-through's, I guess I can take this Makefile change directly. > > Thanks. It's simple enough. > > There are classes of patches generated by scripts that have > no real mechanism to be applied today. > > For instance: global coccinelle scripted changes to use stracpy > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/alpine.DEB.2.21.1907251747560.2494@hadrien/ > > and trivial scripted changes to MAINTAINERS > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6482e6546dc328ec47b07dba9a78a9573ebb3e56.camel@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > that are basically impossible to be applied by anyone but you. > > Otherwise there are hundreds of little micro patches most of > which would not otherwise be applied. > > There should be some process available to get these treewide > or difficult to keep up-to-date and apply patches handled. > > I believe these sorts of scripted patches should ideally > be handled immediately before an RC1 so other trees can be > synchronized in the simplest way possible. Hey Stephen Question for you about a possible -next process change. Would it be reasonable to have some mechanism to script treewide patches to generate and apply after Andrew Morton's mmotm patches are applied to -next? This could allow treewide scripted patches to have compilation and test coverage before possibly being applied to Linus' tree. What would be necessary to allow this?
