Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 3/3] libnvdimm, MAINTAINERS:
 Maintainer Entry Profile
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc:     Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
        ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
References: <156821692280.2951081.18036584954940423225.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <156821693963.2951081.11214256396118531359.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <20190911184332.GL20699@kadam>
 <9132e214-9b57-07dc-7ee2-f6bc52e960c5@kernel.dk>
 <20190913010937.7fc20d93@lwn.net> <20190913114849.GP20699@kadam>
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Message-ID: <b579153b-3f6d-722c-aea8-abc0d026fa0d@infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:00:42 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190913114849.GP20699@kadam>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 9/13/19 4:48 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:

>> So I'm expecting to take this kind of stuff into Documentation/.  My own
>> personal hope is that it can maybe serve to shame some of these "local
>> quirks" out of existence.  The evidence from this brief discussion suggests
>> that this might indeed happen.
> 
> I don't think it's shaming, I think it's validating.  Everyone just
> insists that since it's written in the Book of Rules then it's our fault
> for not reading it.  It's like those EULA things where there is more
> text than anyone can physically read in a life time.

Yes, agreed.

> And the documentation doesn't help.  For example, I knew people's rules
> about capitalizing the subject but I'd just forget.  I say that if you
> can't be bothered to add it to checkpatch then it means you don't really
> care that strongly.

If a subsystem requires a certain spelling/capitalization in patch email
subjects, it should be added to MAINTAINERS IMO.  E.g.,
E:	NuBus

-- 
~Randy