linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] docs: maintainer: Fix ambiguous subheading formatting

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: <3f5997c7-4387-4b26-8a98-b2a1acc3f82c@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2025 16:28:12 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@...ux.dev>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: workflows@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] docs: maintainer: Fix ambiguous subheading formatting



On 9/16/25 3:29 PM, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> Add a newline after both subheadings to avoid any ambiguous formatting,
> especially in htmldocs. Without the newline, subheadings are rendered as
> part of the following paragraphs, which can be confusing to read.
> 
> Suggested-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@...ux.dev>

Reviewed-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Tested-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>

Thanks.

> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Fix subheading formatting with newlines as suggested by Randy
> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250915192235.2414746-2-thorsten.blum@linux.dev/
> ---
>  Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> index cda5d691e967..d36dd892a78a 100644
> --- a/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ week) that patches might be considered for merging and when patches need to
>  wait for the next -rc. At a minimum:
>  
>  - Last -rc for new feature submissions:
> +
>    New feature submissions targeting the next merge window should have
>    their first posting for consideration before this point. Patches that
>    are submitted after this point should be clear that they are targeting
> @@ -68,6 +69,7 @@ wait for the next -rc. At a minimum:
>    submissions should appear before -rc5.
>  
>  - Last -rc to merge features: Deadline for merge decisions
> +
>    Indicate to contributors the point at which an as yet un-applied patch
>    set will need to wait for the NEXT+1 merge window. Of course there is no
>    obligation to ever accept any given patchset, but if the review has not

-- 
~Randy