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;
Date:   Sun, 24 Nov 2019 18:48:54 -0800 (PST)
From:   Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        palmer@dabbelt.com, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, krste@berkeley.edu,
        waterman@eecs.berkeley.edu,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: riscv: add patch acceptance guidelines
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4iqTR8s0v8jH7haWCBQAzhZinUEsypiH7Ts9FCf+F9Bvg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1911241841210.22625@viisi.sifive.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1911221842200.14532@viisi.sifive.com> <20191123092552.1438bc95@lwn.net> <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1911231523390.14532@viisi.sifive.com> <CAPcyv4hmagCVLCTYmmv0U8-YD5BEoQPV=wtm5hbp3MxqwZRQUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1911231546450.14532@viisi.sifive.com> <CAPcyv4hBNfabaZmKs0XF+UT9Py8zJqpNdu5KsToqp305NASKNA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1911231637510.14532@viisi.sifive.com>
 <CAPcyv4iqTR8s0v8jH7haWCBQAzhZinUEsypiH7Ts9FCf+F9Bvg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.9999 (DEB 301 2018-08-15)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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.


- Paul