Re: [PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:58 PM James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 15:19 +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley
> > <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


> >
> > Maintainers routinely review 1-line trivial patches, not to mention
> > internal API changes, etc.
> We're also complaining about the inability to recruit maintainers:
> And burn out:


> The whole crux of your argument seems to be maintainers' time isn't
> important so we should accept all trivial patches ... I'm pushing back
> on that assumption in two places, firstly the valulessness of the time
> and secondly that all trivial patches are valuable.
> > If some company does not want to pay for that, that's fine, but they
> > don't get to be maintainers and claim `Supported`.
> What I'm actually trying to articulate is a way of measuring value of
> the patch vs cost ... it has nothing really to do with who foots the
> actual bill.
> One thesis I'm actually starting to formulate is that this continual
> devaluing of maintainers is why we have so much difficulty keeping and
> recruiting them.


This is just one of the factors involved, but a significant one IMV.

[Index of Archives]     [Linux File System Development]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Ext4 Filesystem]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux