linux-kernel - [PATCH 1/2] docs: *-regressions.rst: unify quoting, add missing word

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: <20240328194342.11760-2-balejk@matfyz.cz>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 20:29:15 +0100
From: Karel Balej <balejk@...fyz.cz>
To: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        regressions@...ts.linux.dev, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, workflows@...r.kernel.org
Cc: balejk@...fyz.cz
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] docs: *-regressions.rst: unify quoting, add missing word

Quoting of the '"no regressions" rule' expression differs between
occurrences, sometimes being presented as '"no regressions rule"'. Unify
the quoting using the first form which seems semantically correct or is
at least used dominantly, albeit marginally.

One of the occurrences is obviously missing the 'rule' part -- add it.

Signed-off-by: Karel Balej <balejk@...fyz.cz>
---
 Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst | 10 +++++-----
 Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst      |  2 +-
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst
index 76b246ecf21b..946518355a2c 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst
@@ -42,12 +42,12 @@ The important basics
 --------------------
 
 
-What is a "regression" and what is the "no regressions rule"?
+What is a "regression" and what is the "no regressions" rule?
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
 It's a regression if some application or practical use case running fine with
 one Linux kernel works worse or not at all with a newer version compiled using a
-similar configuration. The "no regressions rule" forbids this to take place; if
+similar configuration. The "no regressions" rule forbids this to take place; if
 it happens by accident, developers that caused it are expected to quickly fix
 the issue.
 
@@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ Additional details about regressions
 ------------------------------------
 
 
-What is the goal of the "no regressions rule"?
+What is the goal of the "no regressions" rule?
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
 Users should feel safe when updating kernel versions and not have to worry
@@ -199,8 +199,8 @@ Exceptions to this rule are extremely rare; in the past developers almost always
 turned out to be wrong when they assumed a particular situation was warranting
 an exception.
 
-Who ensures the "no regressions" is actually followed?
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+Who ensures the "no regressions" rule is actually followed?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
 The subsystem maintainers should take care of that, which are watched and
 supported by the tree maintainers -- e.g. Linus Torvalds for mainline and
diff --git a/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst b/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst
index ce6753a674f3..49ba1410cfce 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst
@@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ What else is there to known about regressions?
 Check out Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst, it covers a lot
 of other aspects you want might want to be aware of:
 
- * the purpose of the "no regressions rule"
+ * the purpose of the "no regressions" rule
 
  * what issues actually qualify as regression
 
-- 
2.44.0