linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] docs: remove submitting-drivers.rst

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: <c7c21381-fa1c-a67a-e5e0-ac590fe0612f@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Jun 2022 09:50:15 +0700
From:   Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
To:     Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it>,
        Alex Shi <alexs@...nel.org>,
        Yanteng Si <siyanteng@...ngson.cn>,
        Hu Haowen <src.res@...il.cn>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc-tw-discuss@...ts.sourceforge.net
Cc:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] docs: remove submitting-drivers.rst

On 6/27/22 22:18, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> As future work---with this one submitting checklist gone---I see the harder
> follow-up task to synchronize and clean up the various submission hints/
> guidelines/checklists in the remaining kernel documentation that partly
> overlap and differ in detail, their structure (unstructured, unordered
> lists vs. sections and subsections) and their state of being outdated:
> 
>   Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst
>   Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
>   MAINTAINERS#Tips for patch submitters
> 
> My next task at hand is to read through all three documents, figure out
> what still applies and what is outdated, determine a good common structure
> for all three documents, include cross-links and make them to some extent
> follow a clear consistent policy. E.g., one document is a more detailed
> description of everything mentioned in the short list of another document.
> I will try to work through that in the next months or motivate and guide
> some colleague or mentee to work together with me on that.
> 

Hi,

I think MAINTAINERS#Tips for patch submitters contains redundant info
compared to other submission guidelines, and some tips there are outdated
(like using `diff -u` instead of git). For consistency, that section can
be removed (in your next RFC series).

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara