Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: process: Correct numbering

[Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>]

On 12/22/20 8:23 AM, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 20:42:36 +0000
>> Milan Lakhani <milan.lakhani@codethink.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Renumber the steps in submit-checklist.rst as some numbers were skipped.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 72deb455b5ec ("block: remove CONFIG_LBDAF")
>>> Signed-off-by: Milan Lakhani <milan.lakhani@codethink.co.uk>
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst | 24 ++++++++++++------------
>>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst b/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst
>>> index 1879f88..230ee42 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst
>>> +++ b/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst
>>> @@ -75,44 +75,44 @@ and elsewhere regarding submitting Linux kernel patches.
>>>  13) Has been build- and runtime tested with and without ``CONFIG_SMP`` and
>>>      ``CONFIG_PREEMPT.``
>>>
>>> -16) All codepaths have been exercised with all lockdep features enabled.
>>> +14) All codepaths have been exercised with all lockdep features enabled.
>>>
>>> -17) All new ``/proc`` entries are documented under ``Documentation/``
>>> +15) All new ``/proc`` entries are documented under ``Documentation/``
>> [...]
>>
>> I've applied this, but, if you're going to stick a "Fixes" tag onto a
>> patch, it's probably only polite to copy the original author.  I'm not
>> fully convinced that the tag is warranted in this case.
>>
>> This document seems out of date in a number of ways; it could really use a
>> rather more thorough updating than this.
>>
> 
> Jon, I completely agree on your out-of-date comment. That is why we
> pointed Milan to that checklist to start with some small basic changes
> and continue with increasingly more challenging and complex updates.
> 
> Milan, next update for you to consider: what does "make headers_check"
> do nowadays? (spoiler alert: it does nothing) Adjust the documentation
> for that.
> 
> Then, a more general improvement: think about structuring the
> checklist to follow the structure of the other submission guidelines.
> So, reorder the current checklist and check if the step is mentioned
> in submitting-patches and where and make the checklist much more
> aligned to submitting-patches.

Please do not move item #1. It is #1 for a reason.


-- 
~Randy