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: <CAPcyv4gbz996jwQQ5HEJ-L6uqqR+PoA5X6zdDQVnoqcmk+oXPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 24 Nov 2019 19:20:38 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.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 Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 6:49 PM Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

It's just a template, you're free to make sub-headings of your own
choosing, but please try to give a contributor that is spanning
subsystems a chance to navigate similar information across profile
documents.