On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 05:35:53PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 09:23:08PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote: > > > (This is the same reason I generally disagree with Eric Wong about > > > preserving SMTP as the primary transmission protocol -- I've heard lots of > > > complaints both from kernel developers and especially from people trying > > > to > > > contribute to CAF about corporate policies actually making it impossible > > > to > > > submit patches -- and no, using a different mail server is not a > > > possibility > > > for them because it can be a firing offense under their IT AUP rules.) > > > > I'm not opposed to a webmail interface tailored to kernel hacking > > which does stuff like checkpatch.pl and get_maintainer.pl before > > sending (similar to your patchwork proposal and > > gitgadgetgadget). That would get around security appliances > > but SMTP would still be used in the background. > > > > Or offer full-blown HTTPS webmail + IMAP + SMTP access like any > > other webmail provider + checkpatch + get_maintainer helpers. > > Well, this is the bit where I say that it may not be allowed by corporate > rules. I see this all the time in CAF/Android world where companies > *require* that all email goes through their SMTP server so that it can be > properly logged (often for legal reasons). And it is often equally required > that any code submissions come from per...@corporate.com and not > per...@free-email-provider.com for License/CLA reasons, so setting up a > webmail server is not a solution either. > > This is basically why SMTP sucks in my view -- and it's worthless trying to > pick fights with IT departments, because they are told to do so by lawyers. > So, I want to take SMTP out of the equation: > > 1. provide a way for someone to submit a patch using a web interface (but > still in a way that From: is their corporate ID)
If you do this, what happens when a maintainer/reviewer responds to that patch and says "looks good, but can you change X and resend it?" How will they get that message if it didn't go through their email system? How will they be able to respond to it? > 2. use individual git feeds as a way to send out patches instead of always > being secondary to SMTP Sending patches that way is one thing, the interaction based on those patches is another. Everyone needs to remember that only 1/3 of the patches submitted are applied. The "normal" path of development is at least a review/resend cycle for submissions (2/3 of patches). So that 2/3 can't be ignored as the "new/drive-by submissions" are probably more in that category than not. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
