Hi Jonathan,
On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 06:54:59AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Additionally to the "commit <sha1> upstream." variant, "[ Upstream
> > commit <sha1> ]" is used as well as alternative to refer to the upstream
> > commit hash.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 6 ++++++
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> So this is a nit but...
>
> > diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> > index c61865e91f52..2fd8aa593a28 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> > @@ -97,6 +97,12 @@ text, like this:
> >
> > commit <sha1> upstream.
> >
> > +or alternatively:
> > +
> > +.. code-block:: none
> > +
> > + [ Upstream commit <sha1> ]
>
> Can this just be:
>
> or alternatively::
>
> [ Upstream commit <sha1> ]
>
> That extra RST markup just clutters things without any advantage.
Btw, after revisiting, I think Greg actually can pick up the first
version of the patch. Changing the above without adding the
code-block:node will reformat the
[ Upstream commit <sha1> ]
differently when rendering to html.
Greg, so as the patch has not yet been commited, can you pick up the
first version from
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220809045543.2049293-1-carnil@xxxxxxxxxx/
?
Regards,
Salvatore
