From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756464Ab0DUUct (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:32:49 -0400 Received: from mail.perches.com ([173.55.12.10]:1649 "EHLO mail.perches.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755014Ab0DUUcs (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:32:48 -0400 Subject: What's the staging review and acceptance process? From: Joe Perches To: Greg KH Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:32:47 -0700 Message-ID: <1271881967.1730.482.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Greg. Sice your fosdem talk and tuxradar article came out there have been many patches against staging by new contributors (I did some too) that seem to get no feedback or get dropped without comment. Because many of these patches are first attempts, probably most of them should not be applied in the first submitted form. I comment on some every once in awhile, but the number of patches appear to go unnoticed or untracked seems quite high. Do you have enough bandwidth to keep these new contributors engaged? Anything I can do to help? What is your current review/notify/accept/reject workflow? Perhaps a patchwork queue for staging might help track these patches and with more feedback or reviewers, get them in shape to be applied.