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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 5065AC43603 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:55:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20FC32064B for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:55:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727238AbfLQKzw (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Dec 2019 05:55:52 -0500 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31]:41215 "EHLO mga06.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726655AbfLQKzw (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Dec 2019 05:55:52 -0500 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Dec 2019 02:55:52 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,325,1571727600"; d="scan'208";a="209652097" Received: from jnikula-mobl3.fi.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.237.66.161]) by orsmga008-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Dec 2019 02:55:50 -0800 From: Jani Nikula To: Russell King - ARM Linux admin Cc: Linus Walleij , Jonathan Corbet , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: Document the Link: tag formally In-Reply-To: <20191216160213.GM25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo References: <20191216093859.9196-1-linus.walleij@linaro.org> <877e2w1kfj.fsf@intel.com> <20191216133322.GJ25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk> <874ky01i8z.fsf@intel.com> <20191216141611.GK25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk> <871rt41gvb.fsf@intel.com> <20191216144348.GL25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk> <87woawz4kv.fsf@intel.com> <20191216160213.GM25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:55:47 +0200 Message-ID: <87o8w7z0ek.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Russell King - ARM Linux admin 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