On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 11:15 -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Attreyee M <tintinm2017@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Hello maintainers, > > > > I wanted to ask if this patch of mine is accepted as of now. > > You never responded to the question that is still quoted in your > (unfortunately top-posted) email: > > > So this is a classic example of saying what you have done, but not > > why. > > What makes this a change that we want? > > So no, not accepted. Even with a proper changelog, though, I'm not > sure > I see the value in that particular change. >From time to time I see people complaining about the lack of new people coming to kernel development, and that Documentation would be a good start for some of them to learn how to send patches by email (which by itself is difficult...). As Documentation patches aren't backported, why not accept this patch? Jon, I understand your reasoning, but I agree with Attreyee here. The term "acquire" fits better when in conjunction with "released" than "get". Can you show an example of a good commit message to Attreyee so he can adjust and resend? I'm sure the next time he'll consider remember the suggestion given and the next patch will have a better commit message. Thanks, Marcos > > jon >
