Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> But honestly more and more I'm starting to think that we should just >>> reject all these "drive-by cleanups". We have better things to do than >>> fixing unnecessary their bugs. Thoughts? >> >> Hmm, yeah, maybe. I do kinda like the fact that people send patches to >> improve small things, though. We all started out as new to the kernel, >> and I appreciate the fact that people try to improve our "commons" in >> this way even if it's small things. > > Yeah, you have a point. It's just that the extra work from cleanups > feels so unnecessary compared to the practical benefits. And most of the > time we don't hear from these people ever again, that's why I call them > "drive-by cleanup". Sure, I share the frustration, and not everyone turns into regular contributors. But I like to think that even those who don't get something else out of it at least. And on our side I guess there's a balance to be struck between being welcoming and not expending too much effort on it :) >> I do try to be critical of things that can break stuff before ack'ing >> these fixes, but I'll admit that it seems like I don't have that great >> of a track record for judging "correct" in this context (cf this one, >> and that debugfs regression). So I guess you're right that I should at >> least raise the bar somewhat; will try to recalibrate and say no more :) > > You are doing a great job :) Nobody can catch all bugs in review, I > would say there is a small percentage (5%?) of all cleanup patches that > cause issues. Though it would be cool to see some real statistics. Thanks! Yeah, would love to see some statistics, but I suppose it's not trivial to identity "cleanup patches" in the first place in a way that can be automated. Maybe something to poke at sometime one has time to spare (ha!) or needs a break from the regular drudgery :) -Toke
