2016-03-09 14:15, Bruce Richardson: > On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 12:26:58PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > I've changed the title for this discussion. > > > > 2016-03-09 11:01, Bruce Richardson: > > [snip comments about minor issue in release notes] > > > > > Your question, though, does bring up the issue of scope and reviews > > > again. I, as > > > committer, spend a lot of time tweaking commit messages, sanity checking > > > patches for compilation errors under various settings, and running > > > checkpatch > > > etc. before applying them. However, IMHO it is up to the maintainers of > > > the > > > various subsystems to enforce proper documentation in the patches > > > submitted. > > > The maintainers are the primary gatekeepers here, and I, for one, don't > > > want to > > > end up having to review all patches in detail before I apply them - > > > otherwise > > > we'll be limited to a very small number of driver patches per release :) > > > > Yes that's a problem. > > > > > In this case, if the submitter of the patch and the maintainer of the > > > driver in > > > question are happy with the documentation, then who am I to go querying > > > that. :-) > > > > > > Having committers do full review on apply will only have two possible > > > effects: > > > 1. make the maintainers less conscientious about their job, since they > > > know the > > > committers will catch any real bugs or issues on apply > > > > Yes we need maintainers to be conscientious on every parts of the patches. > > Definite +1 > > > One problem about the release notes and doc, is that not a lot of > > maintainers > > have the "english skills". > > Note that it would be easier if we would allow to write in Irish, Chinese or > > French languages ;) > > Unfortunately we took the constraints of writing in C and English. > > > > Yes, language is a good point, and I'm ok with helping to clean up grammar > and > minor language issues e.g. the one word correction I suggested at the start of > this discussion. For the scope of the text, and whether it contains enough > information, I would tend to push that responsibility back on the maintainer > though. > > > > > 2. cause a lot of problems for submitters as they see a lot of issues > > > being > > > flagged at the last minute by committers, when they thought their patch > > > was > > > safely acked and ready for commit for some time. > > > > > > We certainly see lots of the second issue occurring right now, I believe > > > - [I'm > > > obvously not going to comment on the former :-)] > > > > > > I'd be very much in favour of having a rule that once a patch is acked by > > > a > > > maintainer, then it must be applied. We may suffer a bit from slightly > > > lower > > > quality patches getting applied, but the speed of applying patches should > > > increase, and the patch contents can always be fixed by subsequent > > > patches later. > > > [Unlike commit message which can't be fixed later without rewriting git > > > history] > > > In this case, I feel that phrase "the perfect is the enemy of the good" > > > applies. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good > > > > Yes but I don't think saying we are OK to decrease the quality is a good > > message. > > The reality is that people never rework what was been committed. > > Yes, point taken. > > > That's why we must be very careful on API and documentation. > > About the release notes, decreasing its quality mean we don't care wether > > it is > > read and understood. So maybe we can shrink it to less details and have > > only a > > title with a git/author reference. > > I don't think I agree with that. I think the doc should be readable > independently > of having the git repo. > > > > > > Just my 2c on this. I'm sure you have a different view, Thomas, so it's > > > probably > > > a discussion worth having. > > > > Thanks for bringing the discussion. > > Indeed. So I would summarise this as: > * an ask to the maintainers to pay increased attention to documentation side > of > patches when reviewing and acking. > * on my end, I will do some doc reviews as part of applying commits, but on a > best-effort basis. The primary responsibility is with the maintainers to > ensure > documentation quantity before patch application stage. > > Does that seem reasonable?
Yes and I'd like to hear some maintainers to comment or commit this summary.
