Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To:     Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: stable: Document alternative for
 referring upstream commit hash
In-Reply-To: <20220809045543.2049293-1-carnil@debian.org>
References: <20220809045543.2049293-1-carnil@debian.org>
Date:   Tue, 09 Aug 2022 06:54:59 -0600
Message-ID: <8735e5a864.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> writes:

> Additionally to the "commit <sha1> upstream." variant, "[ Upstream
> commit <sha1> ]" is used as well as alternative to refer to the upstream
> commit hash.
>
> Signed-off-by: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

So this is a nit but...

> diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> index c61865e91f52..2fd8aa593a28 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> @@ -97,6 +97,12 @@ text, like this:
>  
>      commit <sha1> upstream.
>  
> +or alternatively:
> +
> +.. code-block:: none
> +
> +    [ Upstream commit <sha1> ]

Can this just be:

  or alternatively::

    [ Upstream commit <sha1> ]

That extra RST markup just clutters things without any advantage.

Thanks,

jon