On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 10:19 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022, David Matlack wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 8:49 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Anyways, if someone wants to pursue this, these ideas and the "requirement" should > > > be run by the checkpatch maintainers. They have far more experience and authority > > > in this area, and I suspect we aren't the first people to want checkpatch to get > > > involved in enforcing shortlog scope. > > > > Documenting would at least be an improvement over what we have today > > since it would eliminate the need to re-explain the preferred rules > > every time. We can just point to the documentation when reviewing > > patches. > > Agreed. And there are many other things I want to formalize for KVM x86, e.g. > testing expectations, health requirements for the various branches, what each > branch is used for etc... > > If you want to send a patch for the shortlogs thing, maybe create > > Documentation/process/maintainer-kvm-x86.rst > > and link it into Documentation/process/maintainer-handbooks.rst? Can do. I'll try to take a look later this week or next week.
