On 21.03.22 15:56, Miquel Raynal wrote:
regressions@leemhuis.info wrote on Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:17:50 +0100:
On 21.03.22 14:41, Miquel Raynal wrote:
regressions@leemhuis.info wrote on Mon, 21 Mar 2022 13:51:10 +0100:
On 21.03.22 13:35, Miquel Raynal wrote:
regressions@leemhuis.info wrote on Mon, 21 Mar 2022 12:48:11 +0100:
On 16.03.22 16:54, Tokunori Ikegami wrote: > As pointed out by this bug report [1], buffered writes are now broken on > S29GL064N. This issue comes from a rework which switched from using chip_good() > to chip_ready(), because DQ true data 0xFF is read on S29GL064N and an error > returned by chip_good(). One way to solve the issue is to revert the change > partially to use chip_ready for S29GL064N. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@pengutronix.d...
Why did you switch from the documented format for links you added on my request (see https://lore.kernel.org/stable/f1b44e87-e457-7783-d46e-0d577cea3b72@leemhuis...
) to v2 to something else that is not recognized by tools and scripts that rely on proper link tags? You are making my and maybe other peoples life unnecessary hard. :-((
FWIW, the proper style should support footnote style like this:
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@pengutronix.d... [1]
Ciao, Thorsten
#regzbot ^backmonitor: https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@pengutronix.d...
Because today's requirement from maintainers is to provide a Link tag that points to the mail discussion of the patch being applied.
That can be an additional Link tag, that is done all the time.
I then asked to use the above form instead to point to the bug report because I don't see the point of having a "Link" tag for it?
Perhaps I should emphasize that I don't remember your initial request regarding the use of a Link tag
Happen, no worries.
and my original idea was to help this contributor, not kill your tools which I actually know very little about.
But it's not your own project, we are all working with thousands of
people together on this project on various different fronts. That needs coordination, as some things otherwise become hard or impossible. That's why we have documentation that explains how to do some things. Not following it just because you don't like it is not helpful and in this case makes my life as a volunteer a lot harder.
Let's be honest, you are referring to a Documentation patch that *you* wrote
Correct, but in case of submitting-patches it was just a clarification how to place links; why the whole aspect was missing in the other is kinda odd and likely lost in history...
and was merged into Linus' tree mid January. How often do you think people used to the contribution workflow monitor these files?
Not often, that's why I have no problem pointing it out, even if that's slightly annoying. But you can imagine that it felt kinda odd on my side when asking someone to set the links (with references to the docs explaining how to set them) and seeing them added then in v2, just so see they vanished again in v3 of the same patch. :-/
I fully understand. I actually learned that these tags had to be used for this purpose, so I will actually enforce their use in my next reviews.
Just a side question, should the Documentation also mention how to refer to links for people not used to it? Something like [5.Posting.rst]:
"Link: <link> [1] Link: <link> [2]"
Maybe. But I think the better approach would be: introduce more specify tags like "Reported:" (and maybe drop "Reported-by" at the same time?) or "BugLink" (some people use that already!) would be better -- and then maybe "Posted:", "Reviewposting", or something like that for the link to the patch that is being applied; and leave "Link" for the rest. I proposed that a while ago, but that didn't get any traction.
My original point was that maintainers would almost always add a Link tag at the end, containing the mailing-list thread about the patch being applied. Just saying in the commit log "see the link below" then becomes misleading.
Maybe, but OTOH that link is normally at the end, which kinda makes it obvious.
[...]
Ciao, Thorsten