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 E74C3C43215 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:57:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0DCE20679 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:57:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728697AbfKYP56 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Nov 2019 10:57:58 -0500 Received: from ms.lwn.net ([45.79.88.28]:57114 "EHLO ms.lwn.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728565AbfKYP56 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Nov 2019 10:57:58 -0500 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 51F582D6; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:57:57 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 08:57:56 -0700 From: Jonathan Corbet To: Paul Walmsley Cc: Dan Williams , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, palmer@dabbelt.com, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, krste@berkeley.edu, waterman@eecs.berkeley.edu, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Doc Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: riscv: add patch acceptance guidelines Message-ID: <20191125085756.75b8088d@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20191123092552.1438bc95@lwn.net> Organization: LWN.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 18:48:54 -0800 (PST) Paul Walmsley wrote: > On Sat, 23 Nov 2019, Dan Williams wrote: > > > I'm open to updating the headers to make a section heading that > > matches what you're trying to convey, however that header definition > > should be globally agreed upon. I don't want the document that tries > > to clarify per-subsystem behaviours itself to have per-subsystem > > permutations. I think we, subsystem maintainers, at least need to be > > able to agree on the topics we disagree on. > > Unless you're planning to, say, follow up with some kind of automated > process working across all of the profile documents in such a way that it > would make technical sense for the different sections to be standardized, > I personally don't see any need at all for profile document > standardization. As far as I can tell, these documents are meant for > humans, rather than computers, to read. And in the absence of a strong > technical rationale to limit how maintainers express themselves here, I > don't think it's justified. Patch changelogs are (mostly) meant for humans to read too, but we have some standards for how we want them formatted. I don't think the maintainer profiles should be all that tightly specified, but it would be a whole lot better if cross-subsystem developers knew where to look to quickly find the information they need. So I'd prefer it if we could find a way to conform to a set of loose guidelines for these files. Thanks, jon