linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Towards a re-organized submitting patches

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]

Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 08:54:54 +0100
From: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Lukas Bulwahn
 <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Towards a re-organized submitting patches

On 03.03.24 17:31, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com> writes:
>> I wanted to clean up the development-process documentation. There is
>> however no easy way to break the ice here:
>>
>> The elephant in the room is that there is some unclear relation between
>> 5.Posting.rst, 6.Followthrough.rst and submitting-patches.rst.
>> (Yes, I know each document has its own history...; but let us put the
>> history aside for now.)
> 
> FWIW, the objective of those two documents is quite different; one is a
> high-level overview of how the development process as a whole works, the
> other is a detailed guide to submitting work for consideration.

Sorry, I'm slightly confused here, so I have to ask: which is which?

Due to the "*essential*" in the headline of submitting-patches.rst and
its "For *detailed* information on how the kernel development process
works, see Documentation/process/development-process.rst" in the intro
make it sounds to me like submitting-patches.rst should be the one with
the high-level overview. But...

> Again, let's remember the different purposes of these documents.  The
> development-process document is an overall description of the process,
> so it doesn't need the details.

..this makes it sounds like you consider it the other way around. And
for me that feels the wrong, as why describe the overall process in
detail, but leave the most important part of the process to some other
document?

/me wonders what he is missing

Ciao, Thorsten