Not GP, but... In the context of recent event, [0] where not reviewing thoroughly enough some tiny patches had a major come-back-to-bite fallout, I can't help but wonder:
How, exactly are you expecting an increase in average patch size to help?
I did read through this debacle when it came out actually, I'm thoroughly on team Greg. I suppose my question was separate from malicious patches - I was interested in knowing if this incremental "merge tiny patches as and when they're ready" mode of development has ever caused issues with half-baked solutions affecting other parts of the kernel where perhaps it wouldn't have otherwise done so if the release was given more time for polishing and testing.
How, exactly are you expecting an increase in average patch size to help?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26887670