The reference to `explicit_in_reply_to` is pointless as when the
reference was added in the form of "#15" [1], Section 15) was "The
canonical patch format".
The reference of "#15" had not been properly updated in a couple of
reorganizations during the plain-text SubmittingPatches era.
Fix it by using `the_canonical_patch_format`.
[1]: 2ae19acaa50a ("Documentation: Add "how to write a good patch summary" to SubmittingPatches")
Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
Fixes: 5903019b2a5e ("Documentation/SubmittingPatches: convert it to ReST markup")
Fixes: 9b2c76777acc ("Documentation/SubmittingPatches: enrich the Sphinx output")
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # v4.9+
---
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
index 9bb4e8c0f635..bf5ead743ccf 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ as you intend it to.
The maintainer will thank you if you write your patch description in a
form which can be easily pulled into Linux's source code management
-system, ``git``, as a "commit log". See :ref:`explicit_in_reply_to`.
+system, ``git``, as a "commit log". See :ref:`the_canonical_patch_format`.
Solve only one problem per patch. If your description starts to get
long, that's a sign that you probably need to split up your patch.
base-commit: f5461124d59bfb62bd9e231ee64cbaf757343ad5
--
2.25.1
