Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> What was posted would have been perfectly fine as a "how about doing >> it this way" weatherbaloon patch, but as a part of real series, it >> needs to explain to the developers what the distinctions between two >> classes are, and who is to use the cocci patch at what point in the >> development cycle, etc., in an accompanying documentation update. > > if only we had documentation [as found via "git grep coccicheck"] > that I could update ... I'd totally do that. > I guess this asks for documentation to begin with, now? So far, we didn't even need any, as there was no "workflow" to speak of. It's just "any random developer finds a suggested update, either by running 'make coccicheck' oneself or by peeking Travis log, and sends in a patch". But the "pending" thing has a lot more workflow elements, who is responsible for noticing update suggested by "pending" ones, for updating the code, and for promoting "pending" to the normal. These are all new, and these are all needed as ongoing basis to help developers---I'd say the way Documentation/SubmittingPatches helps developers is very close to the way this new document would help them.
