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.2.21.9999.1911241841210.22625@viisi.sifive.com>
Date:   Sun, 24 Nov 2019 18:48:54 -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'm open to updating the headers to make a section heading that
> matches what you're trying to convey, however that header definition
> should be globally agreed upon. I don't want the document that tries
> to clarify per-subsystem behaviours itself to have per-subsystem
> permutations. I think we, subsystem maintainers, at least need to be
> able to agree on the topics we disagree on.

Unless you're planning to, say, follow up with some kind of automated 
process working across all of the profile documents in such a way that it 
would make technical sense for the different sections to be standardized, 
I personally don't see any need at all for profile document 
standardization.  As far as I can tell, these documents are meant for 
humans, rather than computers, to read.  And in the absence of a strong 
technical rationale to limit how maintainers express themselves here, I 
don't think it's justified.

- Paul