Date:   Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:06:44 -0300
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>
To:     Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
        Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@...marit.de>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 15/21] Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt: convert it to ReST markup

- use ReST markups for section headers;
- add cross-references to the options;
- mark code blocks;
- a few minor changes to make Sphinx happy.

Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>
---
 Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt | 101 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt b/Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
index ffd4575ec9f2..387d8a44eda2 100644
--- a/Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
+++ b/Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
-Everything you ever wanted to know about Linux -stable releases.
+Everything you ever wanted to know about Linux -stable releases
+===============================================================
 
 Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the
 "-stable" tree:
@@ -27,7 +28,8 @@ Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the
  - It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).
 
 
-Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree:
+Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree
+----------------------------------------------------
 
  - If the patch covers files in net/ or drivers/net please follow netdev stable
    submission guidelines as described in
@@ -35,56 +37,78 @@ Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree:
  - Security patches should not be handled (solely) by the -stable review
    process but should follow the procedures in Documentation/SecurityBugs.
 
-For all other submissions, choose one of the following procedures:
+For all other submissions, choose one of the following procedures
+-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
-   --- Option 1 ---
+.. _option_1:
+
+Option 1
+********
+
+To have the patch automatically included in the stable tree, add the tag
+
+.. code-block:: none
 
-   To have the patch automatically included in the stable tree, add the tag
      Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
-   in the sign-off area. Once the patch is merged it will be applied to
-   the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author
-   or subsystem maintainer.
 
-   --- Option 2 ---
+in the sign-off area. Once the patch is merged it will be applied to
+the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author
+or subsystem maintainer.
 
-   After the patch has been merged to Linus' tree, send an email to
-   stable@...r.kernel.org containing the subject of the patch, the commit ID,
-   why you think it should be applied, and what kernel version you wish it to
-   be applied to.
+.. _option_2:
 
-   --- Option 3 ---
+Option 2
+********
 
-   Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to
-   stable@...r.kernel.org.  You must note the upstream commit ID in the
-   changelog of your submission, as well as the kernel version you wish
-   it to be applied to.
+After the patch has been merged to Linus' tree, send an email to
+stable@...r.kernel.org containing the subject of the patch, the commit ID,
+why you think it should be applied, and what kernel version you wish it to
+be applied to.
 
-Option 1 is *strongly* preferred, is the easiest and most common.  Options 2 and
-3 are more useful if the patch isn't deemed worthy at the time it is applied to
-a public git tree (for instance, because it deserves more regression testing
-first).  Option 3 is especially useful if the patch needs some special handling
-to apply to an older kernel (e.g., if API's have changed in the meantime).
+.. _option_3:
 
-Note that for Option 3, if the patch deviates from the original upstream patch
-(for example because it had to be backported) this must be very clearly
-documented and justified in the patch description.
+Option 3
+********
+
+Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to
+stable@...r.kernel.org.  You must note the upstream commit ID in the
+changelog of your submission, as well as the kernel version you wish
+it to be applied to.
+
+:ref:`option_1` is **strongly** preferred, is the easiest and most common.
+:ref:`option_2` and :ref:`option_3` are more useful if the patch isn't deemed
+worthy at the time it is applied to a public git tree (for instance, because
+it deserves more regression testing first).  :ref:`option_3` is especially
+useful if the patch needs some special handling to apply to an older kernel
+(e.g., if API's have changed in the meantime).
+
+Note that for :ref:`option_3`, if the patch deviates from the original
+upstream patch (for example because it had to be backported) this must be very
+clearly documented and justified in the patch description.
 
 The upstream commit ID must be specified with a separate line above the commit
 text, like this:
 
+.. code-block:: none
+
     commit <sha1> upstream.
 
 Additionally, some patches submitted via Option 1 may have additional patch
 prerequisites which can be cherry-picked. This can be specified in the following
 format in the sign-off area:
 
+.. code-block:: none
+
      Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: a1f84a3: sched: Check for idle
      Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: 1b9508f: sched: Rate-limit newidle
      Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: fd21073: sched: Fix affinity logic
      Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 3.3.x
-    Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
+     Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
+
+The tag sequence has the meaning of:
+
+.. code-block:: none
 
-   The tag sequence has the meaning of:
      git cherry-pick a1f84a3
      git cherry-pick 1b9508f
      git cherry-pick fd21073
@@ -93,12 +117,17 @@ format in the sign-off area:
 Also, some patches may have kernel version prerequisites.  This can be
 specified in the following format in the sign-off area:
 
+.. code-block:: none
+
      Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 3.3.x-
 
-   The tag has the meaning of:
+The tag has the meaning of:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
      git cherry-pick <this commit>
 
-   For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.
+For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.
 
 Following the submission:
 
@@ -109,7 +138,8 @@ Following the submission:
    other developers and by the relevant subsystem maintainer.
 
 
-Review cycle:
+Review cycle
+------------
 
  - When the -stable maintainers decide for a review cycle, the patches will be
    sent to the review committee, and the maintainer of the affected area of
@@ -125,17 +155,22 @@ Review cycle:
    security kernel team, and not go through the normal review cycle.
    Contact the kernel security team for more details on this procedure.
 
-Trees:
+Trees
+-----
 
  - The queues of patches, for both completed versions and in progress
    versions can be found at:
+
 	http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git
+
  - The finalized and tagged releases of all stable kernels can be found
    in separate branches per version at:
+
 	http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git
 
 
-Review committee:
+Review committee
+----------------
 
  - This is made up of a number of kernel developers who have volunteered for
    this task, and a few that haven't.
-- 
2.7.4

Powered by blists - more mailing lists