Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1596376 > unrolled thread

outreachy

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  outreachy Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> - 2017-03-09 21:40 +0100
    Re: outreachy Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com> - 2017-03-09 22:00 +0100
      Re: outreachy Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> - 2017-03-09 22:00 +0100
        Re: outreachy Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-03-09 22:40 +0100
          Re: outreachy Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 23:20 +0100
            Re: outreachy Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-03-10 07:10 +0100

#1596376 — outreachy

Hello,

I discussed the issue of outreachy patches for bcm with Greg, and we are
not convinced that not having the patches CCd to you is such a good idea.
While we don't want to spam you with noise, some of the applicants are
starting to make more significant changes that it could be useful for you
to be aware of.

Could we try a compromise where you are not CCd on whitespace patches, but
you are CCd on patches that actually modify the code?

thanks,
julia

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1596383

Hi Julia,

On 17-03-09 12:36 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I discussed the issue of outreachy patches for bcm with Greg, and we are
> not convinced that not having the patches CCd to you is such a good idea.
> While we don't want to spam you with noise, some of the applicants are
> starting to make more significant changes that it could be useful for you
> to be aware of.
>
> Could we try a compromise where you are not CCd on whitespace patches, but
> you are CCd on patches that actually modify the code?
All I'm asking is you work through your outreachy patches internal first 
to get rid of the most basic mistakes and email traffic it is geerating. 
  Once that learning process is through then they can be sent out like 
any other patches to the kernel mailing lists and maintainers.
>
> thanks,
> julia
>

Thanks,
Scott

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1596384

On 03/09/2017 01:51 PM, Scott Branden wrote:
> Hi Julia,
>
> On 17-03-09 12:36 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I discussed the issue of outreachy patches for bcm with Greg, and we are
>> not convinced that not having the patches CCd to you is such a good idea.
>> While we don't want to spam you with noise, some of the applicants are
>> starting to make more significant changes that it could be useful for you
>> to be aware of.
>>
>> Could we try a compromise where you are not CCd on whitespace patches,
>> but
>> you are CCd on patches that actually modify the code?
 >
> All I'm asking is you work through your outreachy patches internal first
> to get rid of the most basic mistakes and email traffic it is geerating.
>  Once that learning process is through then they can be sent out like
> any other patches to the kernel mailing lists and maintainers.

+1 from me too; I find these patches rather high volume and had to add a 
filter to keep them out of my primary inbox. I don't know what process 
is in place, but I would suggest:

1) Senders send everything to the outreachy list, where they are 
reviewed for basic issues, like learning to use git send-email, learning 
checkpatch, etc. In this case, only send the patch to the outreachy 
mailing list and nowhere else.

2) Once a patch has passed review there, then send the patch to the 
regular kernel mailing list just like any other patch; follow the output 
of get_maintainers.pl.

We have something like (1) inside NVIDIA for new contributors and 
pre-upstreaming IP review. It helps all the newcomers, but without 
requiring anyone involved in (2) to change behaviour.

The process I suggest is very much inline with the typically suggested 
"asking questions" process: (1) read docs yourself (2) ask local 
contacts for help, (3) start asking wider audiences for help.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1596397

On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 01:56:49PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 03/09/2017 01:51 PM, Scott Branden wrote:
> > Hi Julia,
> > 
> > On 17-03-09 12:36 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > I discussed the issue of outreachy patches for bcm with Greg, and we are
> > > not convinced that not having the patches CCd to you is such a good idea.
> > > While we don't want to spam you with noise, some of the applicants are
> > > starting to make more significant changes that it could be useful for you
> > > to be aware of.
> > > 
> > > Could we try a compromise where you are not CCd on whitespace patches,
> > > but
> > > you are CCd on patches that actually modify the code?
> >
> > All I'm asking is you work through your outreachy patches internal first
> > to get rid of the most basic mistakes and email traffic it is geerating.
> >  Once that learning process is through then they can be sent out like
> > any other patches to the kernel mailing lists and maintainers.
> 
> +1 from me too; I find these patches rather high volume and had to add a
> filter to keep them out of my primary inbox.

Hah!  That's the joy of being a maintainer of a driver in staging.  Even
if you filter out outreachy, you are going to get a lot of "basic
mistakes" and other type patches cc:ed to you.

I strongly suggest, that if you all don't like this type of stuff,
either:
	- work to get the code out of staging as soon as possible (i.e.
	  send me coding style fixes for everything right now, and then
	  fix up the rest of the stuff.)
	- take yourself off the maintainer list for this code.

It's your choice, outreachy right now is a lot of patches, but again,
it's not going to keep you from getting the "basic" stuff sent to you
in ways that is totally wrong.

thanks,

greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1596421

On 03/09/2017 01:20 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 01:56:49PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 03/09/2017 01:51 PM, Scott Branden wrote:
>>> Hi Julia,
>>>
>>> On 17-03-09 12:36 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I discussed the issue of outreachy patches for bcm with Greg, and we are
>>>> not convinced that not having the patches CCd to you is such a good idea.
>>>> While we don't want to spam you with noise, some of the applicants are
>>>> starting to make more significant changes that it could be useful for you
>>>> to be aware of.
>>>>
>>>> Could we try a compromise where you are not CCd on whitespace patches,
>>>> but
>>>> you are CCd on patches that actually modify the code?
>>>
>>> All I'm asking is you work through your outreachy patches internal first
>>> to get rid of the most basic mistakes and email traffic it is geerating.
>>>  Once that learning process is through then they can be sent out like
>>> any other patches to the kernel mailing lists and maintainers.
>>
>> +1 from me too; I find these patches rather high volume and had to add a
>> filter to keep them out of my primary inbox.
> 
> Hah!  That's the joy of being a maintainer of a driver in staging.  Even
> if you filter out outreachy, you are going to get a lot of "basic
> mistakes" and other type patches cc:ed to you.
> 
> I strongly suggest, that if you all don't like this type of stuff,
> either:
> 	- work to get the code out of staging as soon as possible (i.e.
> 	  send me coding style fixes for everything right now, and then
> 	  fix up the rest of the stuff.)
> 	- take yourself off the maintainer list for this code.

Keep in mind that most people on this CC list are getting these patches
because of the bcm283* regular expression, and maybe that's what needs
fixing here in the first place.

Incidentally, Stephen did send a patch to get him removed from the
MAINTAINERS entry for Raspberry Pi stuff, so I guess, problem solved for
him. We still have a ton of people from Broadcom who are going to
receive these emails, with mild interest in staging patches.

> 
> It's your choice, outreachy right now is a lot of patches, but again,
> it's not going to keep you from getting the "basic" stuff sent to you
> in ways that is totally wrong.

That is absolutely true, but the thing is that we really got a big spike
of patch submissions lately, and that was totally not accepted. I am not
asking for a "heads-up" email telling people that they are going to
receive more traffic than usual (because that would be too much over
head), but if there was an internal review first on the outreachy
mailing-list and second a proper submission which is going to pass your
acceptance criteria, we would be de facto reducing the amount of emails
that we received.

The outreachy list obviously has people like you and Julia who are
willing to help and provide feedback, so I really don't see what's the
problem in setting up a two tier review here, it does not change
anything for you, but it does change a lot for us.
-- 
Florian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1596666

On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:15:21PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 03/09/2017 01:20 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 01:56:49PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On 03/09/2017 01:51 PM, Scott Branden wrote:
> >>> Hi Julia,
> >>>
> >>> On 17-03-09 12:36 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >>>> Hello,
> >>>>
> >>>> I discussed the issue of outreachy patches for bcm with Greg, and we are
> >>>> not convinced that not having the patches CCd to you is such a good idea.
> >>>> While we don't want to spam you with noise, some of the applicants are
> >>>> starting to make more significant changes that it could be useful for you
> >>>> to be aware of.
> >>>>
> >>>> Could we try a compromise where you are not CCd on whitespace patches,
> >>>> but
> >>>> you are CCd on patches that actually modify the code?
> >>>
> >>> All I'm asking is you work through your outreachy patches internal first
> >>> to get rid of the most basic mistakes and email traffic it is geerating.
> >>>  Once that learning process is through then they can be sent out like
> >>> any other patches to the kernel mailing lists and maintainers.
> >>
> >> +1 from me too; I find these patches rather high volume and had to add a
> >> filter to keep them out of my primary inbox.
> > 
> > Hah!  That's the joy of being a maintainer of a driver in staging.  Even
> > if you filter out outreachy, you are going to get a lot of "basic
> > mistakes" and other type patches cc:ed to you.
> > 
> > I strongly suggest, that if you all don't like this type of stuff,
> > either:
> > 	- work to get the code out of staging as soon as possible (i.e.
> > 	  send me coding style fixes for everything right now, and then
> > 	  fix up the rest of the stuff.)
> > 	- take yourself off the maintainer list for this code.
> 
> Keep in mind that most people on this CC list are getting these patches
> because of the bcm283* regular expression, and maybe that's what needs
> fixing here in the first place.

Yes, I suggest the someone fixes that if they do not wish to get these
types of emails.  Having a regex like that in MAINTAINERS is very crazy,
from another thread I don't think it's really doing what you all want it
to do (meaning it's hitting a lot more files than expected.)

> > It's your choice, outreachy right now is a lot of patches, but again,
> > it's not going to keep you from getting the "basic" stuff sent to you
> > in ways that is totally wrong.
> 
> That is absolutely true, but the thing is that we really got a big spike
> of patch submissions lately, and that was totally not accepted. I am not
> asking for a "heads-up" email telling people that they are going to
> receive more traffic than usual (because that would be too much over
> head), but if there was an internal review first on the outreachy
> mailing-list and second a proper submission which is going to pass your
> acceptance criteria, we would be de facto reducing the amount of emails
> that we received.
> 
> The outreachy list obviously has people like you and Julia who are
> willing to help and provide feedback, so I really don't see what's the
> problem in setting up a two tier review here, it does not change
> anything for you, but it does change a lot for us.

Again, even if outreachy isn't happening, you are still going to be
getting these types of patches from all of the "normal" people that send
staging cleanup patches.  So it's not going to buy you all that much of
a reprieve.

So please send in a MAINTAINERS patch if you don't wish to get these
kinds of patches.  Or, again, just spend a day and send me cleanup
patches to keep anyone else from needing to send in basic checkpatch
fixes for this code.

thanks,

greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web