From: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>,
workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Towards a re-organized submitting patches
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 08:54:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57b07ec5-586a-46e6-9ba2-26be2372c1c2@leemhuis.info> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87plwbxon7.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
On 03.03.24 17:31, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> writes:
>> I wanted to clean up the development-process documentation. There is
>> however no easy way to break the ice here:
>>
>> The elephant in the room is that there is some unclear relation between
>> 5.Posting.rst, 6.Followthrough.rst and submitting-patches.rst.
>> (Yes, I know each document has its own history...; but let us put the
>> history aside for now.)
>
> FWIW, the objective of those two documents is quite different; one is a
> high-level overview of how the development process as a whole works, the
> other is a detailed guide to submitting work for consideration.
Sorry, I'm slightly confused here, so I have to ask: which is which?
Due to the "*essential*" in the headline of submitting-patches.rst and
its "For *detailed* information on how the kernel development process
works, see Documentation/process/development-process.rst" in the intro
make it sounds to me like submitting-patches.rst should be the one with
the high-level overview. But...
> Again, let's remember the different purposes of these documents. The
> development-process document is an overall description of the process,
> so it doesn't need the details.
...this makes it sounds like you consider it the other way around. And
for me that feels the wrong, as why describe the overall process in
detail, but leave the most important part of the process to some other
document?
/me wonders what he is missing
Ciao, Thorsten
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-05 7:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-01 13:46 [PATCH 0/3] Towards a re-organized submitting patches Lukas Bulwahn
2024-03-01 13:46 ` [PATCH 1/3] docs: submitting-patches: divert focus from PATCH in the subject line Lukas Bulwahn
2024-03-13 18:52 ` Randy Dunlap
2024-03-01 13:46 ` [PATCH 2/3] docs: submitting-patches: move split_changes before describe_change Lukas Bulwahn
2024-03-01 13:46 ` [PATCH 3/3] docs: submitting-patches: move backtraces to patch description Lukas Bulwahn
2024-03-03 16:31 ` [PATCH 0/3] Towards a re-organized submitting patches Jonathan Corbet
2024-03-05 7:54 ` Thorsten Leemhuis [this message]
2024-03-05 12:59 ` Jonathan Corbet
2024-03-05 13:23 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2024-03-05 12:39 ` Lukas Bulwahn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=57b07ec5-586a-46e6-9ba2-26be2372c1c2@leemhuis.info \
--to=linux@leemhuis.info \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com \
--cc=workflows@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).