linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Documentation: riscv: add patch acceptance guidelines

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1911231637510.14532@viisi.sifive.com>
Date:   Sat, 23 Nov 2019 16:42:49 -0800 (PST)
From:   Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        palmer@...belt.com, aou@...s.berkeley.edu, krste@...keley.edu,
        waterman@...s.berkeley.edu,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: riscv: add patch acceptance guidelines

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019, Dan Williams wrote:

> I took a look, and I think the content would just need to be organized 
> into the proposed sections. The rules about what level of ratification a 
> specification needs to receive before a patch will be received sounds 
> like an extension to the Submit Checklist to me. So I'd say just format 
> your first paragraph into the Overview section and the other 2 into 
> Submit Checklist and call it good.

I'm fine with doing that for this patch.

Stepping back to the broader topic of the maintainer profile patches, one 
comment there: unless you're planning to do automated processing on these 
maintainer profile document sections, it's probably better to let 
maintainers format their own profile documents as they wish.  

Just to use the arch/riscv document as an example: the last two 
paragraphs, to me, don't belong in a "submit checklist" section, since 
that implies that the text there only needs to be read before patches are 
submitted.  We'd really prefer that developers understand what patches 
we'll take before they even start developing them.

I imagine we wouldn't be the only ones that would prefer to create their 
own section headings in this document, etc.

- Paul