在 2024/4/27 15:06, Miguel Ojeda 写道:
On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 6:38 AM Yanteng Si <siyanteng@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What I mean is that if I translate these two patches as two separate
patches,
Ah, I see. As far as I know and from a quick look at the history, the
translations try to be in sync with the latest non-translated status
at their own pace, and they don't mimic the development of the
non-translated side commit-by-commit.
So I don't think particular commits should be translated as separate
patches. In other words, what you did here in this v2 seems fine,
since it already contains the "final state".
Of course, there is a small risk of going out of sync with the current
patch series if e.g. the RISC-V PR does not get eventually merged in
the next merge window. This is why I mentioned that I am not sure what
the policy is for translations here (e.g. there may be a requirement
that patches to be applied to translations have been already applied
to mainline, in which case you may want to send the RISC-V bit later
-- but I don't know what the actual policy is).
Yes, our current update policy is a bit vague. Most of the time, this is
consistent with the latest state of the linux-next tree, but in the future
it may tend to be consistent with the latest state of the doc tree, Would
avoid the situation you're talking about with riscv.
The optimal solution is always to provide both Chinese and English
modifications. :)
Thanks,
Yanteng
