Re: [docs] [PATCH 4/4] contributor-guide: deprecate "Accepted" patch status

[Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com>]

On 20.09.23 at 12:06, Roland Hieber wrote:
> This is in accordance with the Release Notes of the gatesgarth release:
>
>    > In the ``Upstream-Status`` header convention for patches,
>    > ``Accepted`` has | been replaced with ``Backport`` as these almost
>    > always mean the same thing i.e. the patch is already upstream and
>    > may need to be removed in a future recipe upgrade. If you are adding
>    > these headers to your own patches then use Backport to indicate that
>    > the patch has been sent upstream.
>
>    <https://docs.yoctoproject.org/migration-guides/migration-3.2.html#miscellaneous-changes>
>
> Suggested-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com>
> Signed-off-by: Roland Hieber <rhi@pengutronix.de>
> ---
>   .../contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst       | 14 +++++++-------
>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst b/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst
> index bc14c58a9759..ab3b94f02e7e 100644
> --- a/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst
> +++ b/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst
> @@ -277,13 +277,13 @@ following status strings:
>      Submitted to upstream, waiting for approval. Optionally include where
>      it was submitted, such as the author, mailing list, etc.
>   
> -``Accepted``
> -   Accepted in upstream, expect it to be removed at next update, include
> -   expected version info.
> +``Backport [version]``
> +   Accepted upstream and included in the next release, or backported from newer
> +   upstream version, because we are at a fixed version.
> +   Include upstream version info (e.g. commit ID or next expected version).
>   
> -``Backport``
> -   Backported from new upstream version, because we are at a fixed version,
> -   include upstream version info.
> +   Note: historically, ``Accepted`` was another way to mark such patches, but
> +   this status is now deprecated.


I'd remove these last 2 lines, as we'd have to remove them one day 
anyway, to keep the manual going straight to the point.
The rest looks good to me otherwise.

I actually started to make the changes by myself, but then it was hard 
to share these changes with you and other reviewers. I hope this can 
help with future patches :)

Maybe in a V3 you can add what Alex explained about the "Pending" status.

Thanks for everything!
Cheers
Michael.

-- 
Michael Opdenacker, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com