Re: [patch 0/2] Documentation/process: Add subsystem/tree handbook

From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	john.stultz@linaro.org, acme@redhat.com, frederic@kernel.org,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
	daniel.lezcano@linaro.org,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] Documentation/process: Add subsystem/tree handbook
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 10:53:23 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201217105323.4d882a7d@lwn.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201217150537.GC23634@zn.tnic>

On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 16:05:37 +0100
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:

> So, that thing.
> 
> I have this ontop of 5.10 along with most comments integrated.
> 
> Now, I'm thinking if I start sending those pieces which belong into the
> main process documentation, the bikeshedding that is going to ensue is
> going to be insane. And we have day jobs too, you know. :)
> 
> Thus, I'm also thinking that I should do this piecemeal and once we've
> all agreed on one aspect and you've applied it, Jon, I'll carve out and
> send the next. Rinse and repeat.
> 
> How does that sound, makes sense?

Gee...a response from a two-year-old thread...it's taking me a while to
page all of that back in :)

I'd love to see this work get in, I still feel bad about my part in
stalling it before.

Piecemeal could certainly work, or we could just try the whole thing and
see what happens.  We got Thorsten's reporting-issues tome in without much
trouble, after all, and that's bikeshed territory if anything is.  But
whatever works is fine; send stuff and I'll gladly look at it.

Thanks,

jon