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=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,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 3D98EC432C0 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:58:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 119A320679 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:58:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="jh9K6JV6" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 119A320679 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-riscv-bounces+infradead-linux-riscv=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To: Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=Y1kQQDB0tpj3h7vS7CBv84NkSqErZMtFFXcdNzlGjSQ=; b=jh9K6JV61C8gFM tI+X2H872KetpNQnSBz7Y3pw1uHewhXTTrcWYt7PqH1WvuKKsiReSX+L+PGn5fjeYu6Rnlh9C4jxq qZ8eRMpKj7dzoW8QkROZDux8VGA4B5O2zvh0IdNTM4aVf2pZPSZS0q4uQGuq98pw6qwnpTq3FPKuZ 8ljiR3HZ/pQUeU22e0wdqhZgNtAvDDUXl0wVK++3dsPeMHD03VBarKMZd9E9Lp2Lx7YLlMA1S+vLk eUko4Ay2qfiU38gmYszgrOkNkdwc1fxLOBqew3Ps7x83iYQBoTz+eQBnpsW7ojgPe2uAZn5FeKN4g 02UcFoAYOO30fmM+dmCg==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iZGkV-0008Bm-Ve; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:58:03 +0000 Received: from ms.lwn.net ([45.79.88.28]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iZGkT-0008B6-Cj for linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:58:03 +0000 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 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 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20191125_075801_434896_D9A67326 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 15.10 ) X-BeenThere: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: krste@berkeley.edu, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, waterman@eecs.berkeley.edu, Linux Doc Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , palmer@dabbelt.com, Dan Williams , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-riscv" Errors-To: linux-riscv-bounces+infradead-linux-riscv=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.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 _______________________________________________ linux-riscv mailing list linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv