netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] docs: netdev: recommend against --in-reply-to

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: <20230824090854.GA464302@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 10:08:54 +0100
From: Martin Habets <habetsm.xilinx@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
	pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] docs: netdev: recommend against --in-reply-to

On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 08:49:22AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> It's somewhat unfortunate but with (my?) the current tooling
> if people post new versions of a set in reply to an old version
> managing the review queue gets difficult. So recommend against it.

Is this something NIPA could catch?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>

Reviewed-by: Martin Habets <habetsm.xilinx@...il.com>

> ---
>  Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
> index 2ab843cde830..c1c732e9748b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
> @@ -167,6 +167,8 @@ Asking the maintainer for status updates on your
>  patch is a good way to ensure your patch is ignored or pushed to the
>  bottom of the priority list.
>  
> +.. _Changes requested:
> +
>  Changes requested
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  
> @@ -359,6 +361,10 @@ Make sure you address all the feedback in your new posting. Do not post a new
>  version of the code if the discussion about the previous version is still
>  ongoing, unless directly instructed by a reviewer.
>  
> +The new version of patches should be posted as a separate thread,
> +not as a reply to the previous posting. Change log should include a link
> +to the previous posting (see :ref:`Changes requested`).
> +
>  Testing
>  -------
>  
> -- 
> 2.41.0
>