On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 16:57:33 +0200, Michael Melcher wrote:

Thank you, Johannes, for your Feedback.

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de> wrote:

...

Hi Michael,

On Donnerstag, 7. April 2016 16:31:11 CEST Michael Melcher wrote: [...]

...

https://github.com/jimdigriz/debian-mssp4

FYI: 002_surfacepro4-button.patch went in via commit 6d5ac6e1771 in v4.5-rc1

True that. But that's the only one thus far. The Power and Volume buttons work with that Patch, but the Typing Cover doesn't.

...

...

I would like to ask these patches to be included in Kernel:HEAD to get openSUSE work on my SP4.

I don't think the patches are acceptible in openSUSE's kernel, as they do not indicate who authored them at all. There neither is a From: line nor a Signed- off-by: line, so I'm not shure if we're even allowed to include them in openSUSE.

I'll CC Alex (Maintainer of the GIT Repo). Perhaps he can tell us who wrote the patches originally can adjust them to be proper for inclusion. @Alex: I'm not sure you can reply to the list. If you can't you can either subscribe to the list or send your reply to me and I'll forward it to the list. In any way, your help is greatly appreciated :-)

In general, we have "upstream-first" policy, and we've been trying hard to reduce non-upstream patches. That said, the best route would be to submit the patches to upstream, then we backport them once when they are accepted. Otherwise wild patches may be a big PITA. Of course, people can help building unofficial patched kernels in OBS projects. This isn't difficult at all once when you know how to do it, and this alone should help a lot for testing. But merging to the common kernel tree needs higher criteria. And, of course, we're willing to help submitting to upstream. Feel free to ask for review on opensuse-kernel ML, or even reporting to Bugzilla would be a good start. But, don't forget to involve the relevant people, especially the original patch authors. Otherwise it won't work. HTH, Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 18:20:53 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

On Thursday 2016-04-07 17:12, Takashi Iwai wrote:

...

In general, we have "upstream-first" policy

The UF paragraphs you find on https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Patches_guidelines#Upstream_polic... are an *option* to (a) expedite patches when maintainers are the same, (b) soothe upstream's worry that there is an incompetent downstream at work.

That, of course, does not invalidate the goal of least-patches-possible - sometimes you just have to try out a patch on your distro folks (this is where the "test mass" is) before upstreaming. :)

...

That said, the best route would be to submit the patches to upstream, then we backport them once when they are accepted. Otherwise wild patches may be a big PITA.

Wild patches, at least if properly documented per Type 2 Markup, are not as bad as you make them out to be.

The PITA in packaging is wielding a big patch stack (irrespective of wild or backported), because you have to rerun quilt setup whenever there was a fuzz/reject, which increases with the number of total patches.

Yes, and the kernel is *exactly* the big patch stack. We have more than 12,000 patches on SLE12 kernel, for example. However, ironically, the amount of patches doesn't correspond to the difficulty of the maintenance straightforwardly. Rather keeping a wild patch in an enterprise kernel is easier than keeping in Tumbleweed kernel. Since TW kernel is a moving target, and as you know well, the Linux kernel is one of the fastest evolving code tree, keeping the out-of-tree patch is a really burden while following the development of the kernel tree. Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org