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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <b579153b-3f6d-722c-aea8-abc0d026fa0d@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <b579153b-3f6d-722c-aea8-abc0d026fa0d@infradead.org>
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date:   Fri, 13 Sep 2019 19:57:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdWZyJ-z6dLFMOdCLotP8J114hGX9C7+bGgxk9ReQ-Si=w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 3/3] libnvdimm, MAINTAINERS:
 Maintainer Entry Profile
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
        ksummit <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Randy,

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:00 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> 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

Oh, I understood the question differently.  I thought it was about
"sub: system: Fix foo" vs. "sub: system: fix foo".

For simple and trivial things, I tend to make changes while applying, as that's
usually less work than complaining, and verifying that it's been fixed in the
next (if any) version n days/weeks/months later.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds