Re: [PATCH] docs: Document the Link: tag formally

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 05:13:20PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> I'm not sure that you understand our workflow. But it doesn't matter;
>> it's clear that they are different. In your workflow, the value for the
>> tag is subjective. In our workflow, it's not, it's unambiguous. And
>> there is really no point in debating the relative merits of the
>> workflows.
>
> I don't see why you think that it's subjective in my workflow. It
> isn't. The proposed patch and the officially submitted patch are
> generally identical. The difference is, which thread is the more
> useful thread to link the patch to - the one with the discussion
> about the patch including why it's needed, or the official submission
> that contains none of that.

In my experience, it's common to have several versions of a patch, often
in several threads. If I were to choose which message to reference,
other than the patch that was actually applied, I'd feel it would be a
subjective choice.

> I guess it depends whether you wish to capture the submission itself
> or the actual useful discussion about the patch with the tag. If
> we're going to be officially defining this tag, then really that
> question needs to be settled.
>
> What worries me at this point is that you seem to want to withdraw
> from the discussion before any concensus has been reached, which
> presents a problem for Linus' proposed patch...

I don't think we can reach a meaningful consensus between ourselves that
other people would care about anyway; indeed this sentiment is echoed in
Jon's and Ted's replies.


BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center