On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 11:29 AM Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 7:08 PM Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:03 PM Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 13:22 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote: > > > > Add a new verbose mode to checkpatch. The verbose test > > > > descriptions are read from the checkpatch documentation > > > > file at `Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst`. > > > > > > > > The verbose mode is optional and can be enabled by the > > > > flag -v or --verbose. > > > > > > > > The documentation file is only parsed by checkpatch.pl > > > > if the verbose mode is enabled. The verbose mode can > > > > not be used together with the --terse option. > > > > > > I don't have any real objection to this patch set, but as this > > > might be added to the Documentation tree and in .rst format, > > > perhaps Jonathan Corbet and/or Mauro Carvalho Chehab might have > > > some opinion. > > > > > > Also I do not want to be a maintainer of this .rst file and > > > likely neither Jon nor Mauro would either. Perhaps you? > > > > > > > I could take it up if everybody is okay with it! > > > > And as I set Dwaipayan on this task on documenting checkpatch, I will > assist in maintaining this file as well. I will also pull some strings > to increase chances that Dwaipayan becomes a longer-term member in > this community and on this maintainer task. > Sounds nice to me! I would definitely love to remain as a active member even after the mentorship period ends. So I think this is a good start :)
> > > Ideally, the patch order would be reversed so the .rst file > > > is added first, then checkpatch updated to use it. > > > > > > > Sure, if Jonathan or Mauro has no objections to it, I will be happy > > to resend it so that it can be picked up properly. > > > > > And _a lot_ more types and descriptive content should be added. > > > > Yes that's for sure. If this makes it I will try to get all of the > > other types in. > > I agree as well, probably a critical mass for inclusion is that we > have at least 25% (so roughly 50 rules) documented. > > > And if Lukas agrees, a little help from my fellow kernel mentees will > > be nice as well! > > > > Completely agree. I will recruit new mentees and go through the > exercises with them, until they are ready to send proper patches to > checkpatch.rst. As the designated maintainer of that file, you will be > busy reviewing, consolidating that content and pushing back if it is > not good enough for inclusion (so just as in the typical "good cop-bad > cop" game: I will motivate and help them to submit, you make sure you > get good content). > That is a nice plan! Certainly looking forward to it. Thanks & Regards, Dwaipayan.
