Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-22614-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Message-ID: <49cfdce3094fcc37ecf01bb358509c64ee8feed9.camel@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/livepatch: Update terminology in livepatch
From: Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@suse.com>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Attreyee M <tintinm2017@gmail.com>, 
	Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
Cc: jpoimboe@kernel.org, jikos@kernel.org, mbenes@suse.cz, pmladek@suse.com,
  joe.lawrence@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,  live-patching@vger.kernel.org
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:51:40 -0300
In-Reply-To: <87jzohoy02.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
References: <20231223205813.32083-1-tintinm2017@gmail.com>
	 <87o7eg607d.fsf@meer.lwn.net> <ZYpb6Woh45ZnEvCP@archie.me>
	 <CAJjsb4reD_TVWRFonp90xXD4Ye2OOfOd894PzmfMKaP3qFkbYg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <87jzohoy02.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.1 
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 11:15 -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Attreyee M <tintinm2017@gmail.com> writes:
>=20
> > Hello maintainers,=20
> >=20
> > I wanted to ask if this patch of mine is accepted as of now.=20
>=20
> You never responded to the question that is still quoted in your
> (unfortunately top-posted) email:
>=20
> > So this is a classic example of saying what you have done, but not
> > why.
> > What makes this a change that we want?
>=20
> So no, not accepted.=C2=A0 Even with a proper changelog, though, I'm not
> sure
> I see the value in that particular change.

From time to time I see people complaining about the lack of new people
coming to kernel development, and that Documentation would be a good
start for some of them to learn how to send patches by email (which by
itself is difficult...).

As Documentation patches aren't backported, why not accept this patch?

Jon, I understand your reasoning, but I agree with Attreyee here. The
term "acquire" fits better when in conjunction with "released" than
"get".

Can you show an example of a good commit message to Attreyee so he can
adjust and resend? I'm sure the next time he'll consider remember the
suggestion given and the next patch will have a better commit message.

Thanks,
  Marcos

>=20
> jon
>=20