Am 07.04.2015 um 13:32 schrieb Peter Zijlstra: > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 01:28:27PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> Can't we send all these kind of patches through the trivial tree? >> Don't get me wrong, if you are fine with these patches that's you decision. >> But other maintainers might think they have to take these patches and >> get overloaded. I'm thinking of drivers maintainers that can only work >> one or two hours per week on Linux. >> Not everyone works full time on it like you. >> >> I propose to send all this stuff though the trivial tree such that >> maintainers >> of other subsystems have less workload and newbies (which are supposed >> to send such patches) know which tree they have to work against. >> Let's have to well defined and ordered. :-) > > As per the other branch of this tree; an emphatic NO to that. The > trivial tree is not a backdoor to bypass maintainers. Actual code > changes do not get to go through any tree but the maintainer tree unless > explicitly ACKed.
I agree that the series in question is useless. But if a patch is trivial it can go through the trivial tree. By trivial I really mean *trivial* in terms of typos and 80 character limit crap. It has to be something which does not hurt and the maintainer can safely ignore. Thanks, //richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
