From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AD941ABEA4 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 23:31:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722641514; cv=none; b=tQaC/I3qWwBio6PVaOQ6qqCJSYMnC35arSodoMXXbSKBkf59wIxHpMcbpcrsKa7yBluWySV5x+f+FMdQKMhCcKTTpH+m35EHOresykKFlljIKAkThyh79CvX9JUf6/kr9S4kix8mGAMhN0uB0lufVSId++NXYKgTQHE435Fx4kU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722641514; c=relaxed/simple; bh=9RzJmys1rE9FrQC6+ahXZKiN8+9md7sugf/ol3/w9aU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=TL5E8ig13zXwszb86lvnEkZry1nDF1ojclxbn20qOMUJoLs43n8Fb1gdFugKPDtebRzdpP8rcAbtH62uvWRsLiqFA9Hu0NyMuSaIRBVwA5Y/1VQPdxYz9BFoJRM1igmLXuFyZPLLnh1odMKKDpk2zeoQE1OwiChMlOU4hct35j4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=XoCl+6qd; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="XoCl+6qd" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E74818E59; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:31:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=9RzJmys1rE9FrQC6+ahXZKiN8+9md7sugf/ol3 /w9aU=; b=XoCl+6qdYGqwsOniwLM75kiqsHBu4MVpLgaO7282yKeg+ribpsvVfv /o8JRjeU5bYraXGHx32UNy8elveVV9Pd91SW8uRdy89bX/xX0jDMti1gcFLqx+HP aAcONOQ1Uu22hwUdUazLVKQqZ9pYuHEi/RjItGumWeKcuycwZ+Niw= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A8218E58; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:31:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.108.217]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 93F8218E57; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:31:51 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Emily Shaffer Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Randall S. Becker" , Taylor Blau , =?utf-8?Q?=C3=86var_Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0?= =?utf-8?Q?_Bjarmason?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] Documentation: add platform support policy In-Reply-To: <20240802221948.2367124-1-emilyshaffer@google.com> (Emily Shaffer's message of "Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:19:48 -0700") References: <20240802221948.2367124-1-emilyshaffer@google.com> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2024 16:31:50 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6542AB70-5127-11EF-BE2C-34EEED2EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Emily Shaffer writes: > - Wording and bulleting format fixes in commit message and body > > - Clarify cadence for tests against 'next' > > - Attempt to clarify dependency version minimum requirement to something > reasonable and flexible. Note: This section still probably needs > better wording; I took a crack at it but it still feels awkward. > Suggestions welcome, please. > > - Be more realistic about finding non-intrusive platform support > approaches ("we'll look for" rather than "we'll definitely find and in > fact know a few options in advance") > > - Move up "Minimum Requirements" section to the top, so we don't > bait-and-switch maintainers of platforms who don't even meet the > baseline but start making effort to set up testing infrastructure and > so on. > > I believe that this version addresses Randall's concerns with the > "minimum requirements" policy. Are there any other outstanding concerns > with the policy itself, as written, or is this ready to go in (modulo > nits)? I won't be able to speak for Randall, but I didn't see anything questionable in the changes since the previous iteration (I have not yet read the whole thing again, which I will later). Thanks.