From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:45804 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726893AbeLAJlj (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Dec 2018 04:41:39 -0500 Message-ID: <1543617045.3031.41.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3 From: James Bottomley To: Jarkko Sakkinen , Jonathan Corbet Cc: Davidlohr Bueso , Kees Cook , LKML , Amir Goldstein , Andrew Morton , Andy Shevchenko , Daniel Axtens , "David S. Miller" , Dominik Brodowski , Maling list - DRI developers , Eric Dumazet , federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it, Geert Uytterhoeven , Helge Deller , Joshua Kinard , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, Linux Media Mailing List , Linux MIPS Mailing List , Linux mtd , linux-parisc , Linux PM list , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, matthias.bgg@gmail.com, Network Development , nouveau , Paolo Abeni , Paul Burton , Petr Mladek , Rob Herring , sean.wang@mediatek.com, Sergey Senozhatsky , shannon.nelson@oracle.com, Stefano Brivio , Steven Rostedt , "Tobin C. Harding" , makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp, Willem de Bruijn , Yonghong Song , yanjun.zhu@oracle.com Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:30:45 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20181130222605.GA26261@linux.intel.com> References: <20181130192737.15053-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20181130195652.7syqys76646kpaph@linux-r8p5> <20181130205521.GA21006@linux.intel.com> <1543611662.3031.20.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20181130214405.GG23772@linux.intel.com> <1543615069.3031.27.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20181130221219.GA25537@linux.intel.com> <20181130151459.3ca2f5c8@lwn.net> <20181130222605.GA26261@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 14:26 -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:14:59PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: [...] > > Have you read Documentation/process/code-of-conduct- > > interpretation.rst? > > As has been pointed out, it contains a clear answer to how things > > should be interpreted here. > > Ugh, was not aware that there two documents. > > Yeah, definitely sheds light. Why the documents could not be merged > to single common sense code of conduct? The fact that we've arrived at essentially an original CoC reinterpreted to the point where it's effectively a new CoC has been the source of much debate and recrimination over the last few months ... you can read it in the ksummit-discuss archives, but I really think we don't want to reopen that can of worms. James