Message-ID: <5d0c6929-721e-0887-20f0-b9922840504c@leemhuis.info>
Date:   Fri, 7 Jan 2022 17:41:15 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.4.0
Content-Language: en-BS
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        workflows@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
References: <cover.1641565030.git.linux@leemhuis.info>
 <YdhqNHI/f2B/SlcE@kroah.com>
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] docs: add a text about regressions to the
 Linux kernel's documentation
In-Reply-To: <YdhqNHI/f2B/SlcE@kroah.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 07.01.22 17:28, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 03:21:00PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> 'We don't cause regressions' might be the first rule of Linux kernel
>> development, but it and other aspects of regressions nevertheless are hardly
>> described in the Linux kernel's documentation. The following two patches change
>> this by creating a document dedicated to the topic.
>>
>> The second patch could easily be folded into the first one, but was kept
>> separate, as it might be a bit controversial. This also allows the patch
>> description to explain some backgrounds for this part of the document.
>> Additionally, ACKs and Reviewed-by tags can be collected separately this way.
>>
>> v2/RFC:
>> - a lot of small fixes, most are for spelling mistakes and grammar
>>   errors/problems pointed out in the review feedback I got so far
>> - add ACK for the series from Greg
> 
> My ack seems not to be here :(

Huh, how did that happen? Sorry, thx for pointing it out, will be in v3.

> Also, this is a "real" series, no need for a RFC anymore, right?

I was taken a bit back-and-forth and then settled on calling this one
still RFC, as I was unsure if people Jon might want to wait on feedback
from Linus before they take