On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 12:36:06PM -0700, Josh Steadmon wrote: > How would you feel about a doc outlining how the process changes as you > go from: A) small/medium patch series, to B) larger discussions with > (parts of) the proposal recorded in patches, to C) large discussions > with no patches? This is the structure I'm leaning towards for my V2 > draft. That sounds like a reasonable direction to take. > > Another way of thinking about this is that I would be extremely > > reluctant to see a similar document proposed for reviewing at the patch > > series level. In my opinion, the system of reviewers and participants > > discussing the series and the maintainer solely determining whether or > > not consensus has been reached is a good one, and I would be extremely > > hesitant to recommend changing it. > > Sorry, I'm not sure I understand why you wouldn't want the patch series > process documented? I'm just trying to capture the status quo, not to > propose or recommend any changes. Apologies, I misspoke here. I don't mean to say that such a document shouldn't exist, but rather that I'd be hesitant to see a prescriptive document outlining how patches are reviewed at too granular a level. Having a document like Documentation/ReviewingGuidelines.txt makes sense to me and seems like a good thing to keep. Thanks, Taylor
