From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1BB3C433E2 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 15:57:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C96562072A for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 15:57:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728723AbgICP5k (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Sep 2020 11:57:40 -0400 Received: from ms.lwn.net ([45.79.88.28]:58438 "EHLO ms.lwn.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728382AbgICP5h (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Sep 2020 11:57:37 -0400 Received: from lwn.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1692B44A; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 15:57:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 09:57:35 -0600 From: Jonathan Corbet To: Drew DeVault Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] submitting-patches.rst: presume git will be used Message-ID: <20200903095735.0793c054@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: <20200902155759.55895-5-sir@cmpwn.com> References: <20200902155759.55895-1-sir@cmpwn.com> <20200902155759.55895-5-sir@cmpwn.com> Organization: LWN.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 11:57:59 -0400 Drew DeVault wrote: > Git is fairly ubiquitous these days, and the additional information in > this documentation for preparing patches without it is not especially > relevant anymore and may serve to confuse new contributors. > > Signed-off-by: Drew DeVault This is generally good, but I have a comment (of course!)... [...] > @@ -380,13 +326,17 @@ server, and provide instead a URL (link) pointing to your patch. But note > that if your patch exceeds 300 kB, it almost certainly needs to be broken up > anyway. > > -8) Respond to review comments > +``git request-pull`` may be used to generate an email which summarizes your changes > +and provides a URL to fetch your tree from. See :ref:`_request_pull`. I'm not sure we want to be suggesting pull requests in our basic document on patch submission. Few, if any, maintainers will pull from developers who still need this document. Actually, I think this whole section ("E-mail size") is wrong, now that I look at it. People who post patches behind a URL rarely get a favorable response. Maybe we should just delete that section entirely? Thanks, jon