From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89D437A for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 21:34:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (mdns.lwn.net [45.79.72.68]) (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 DCB90536; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 21:34:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net DCB90536 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1650490470; bh=6T0lvX8RNX9xGYkNbu6K5mxfaWl3HxhoGMIgYH6RZgk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=EQpMNXKGIxm38WSQDxnU2OdP/4CzkhHcofv0U0qShswpXUT1Hkk9mmRTNoIfYP7YN yd7D6NQU2ueg5+AjSzzYWO0YAs3ortCaoNy048kqLPG+qR7KUWMRE7oBBldiOwEbHG 6QPzRlP8bjEAPdGBzvP1d3cj3IgVmxiEezT/GofTarisxddOGNc0uTyrGkE7eyAKaV xZdO6L0SfWQkgv4rla7xsCk0Wk7jLC/vbX/wzTw/C9+PKc4Fhyc3USGVAHFRu4lKBM SExjDE70Y7pDHa8oXj/tn1s94SQxyY0T1GS0gdbWrDPOSxwbWn6VnWCvtY832M07Lw UgolFy9dY8XQg== From: Jonathan Corbet To: Bruno Moreira-Guedes Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, outreachy@lists.linux.dev, Bruno's Patch Watchbox Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Docs: Update information at changes.rst In-Reply-To: <20220420172731.ru7kfrdkmprybtu7@AN5Bruno> References: <8735i83xo1.fsf@meer.lwn.net> <20220420172731.ru7kfrdkmprybtu7@AN5Bruno> Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 15:34:26 -0600 Message-ID: <878rrz30d9.fsf@meer.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: outreachy@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Bruno Moreira-Guedes writes: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 03:35:10AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: >> Bruno Moreira-Guedes writes: >> > >> > The PATCH 1/2 fixes the missing cpio requirement, while PATCH 2/2 fixes >> > the kernel version reference. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Bruno Moreira-Guedes >> >> Patches applied, thanks. > Thanks, Jon! I have also been thinking whether this filename > ('changes.rst') is a good description of the file contents. Do you think > renaming it to something like 'requirements.rst' and updating its > references would be a good patch? It's best not to rename things unnecessarily, especially relatively well-known files that a lot of people expect to find in a specific place. We've done a lot of renaming over the last few years, but this is one I might let slide for now. Thanks, jon