On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 02:44:30 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 10:12:15 -0700 > Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > -Q: I see a network patch and I think it should be backported to stable. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -Q: Should I request it via stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx like the references in > > -the kernel's Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst file say? > > +Q: I see a network patch and I think it should be backported to stable. Should I request it via stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx like the references in the kernel's Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst file say? > > +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I don't think that making these massive heading lines actually improves the > experience - for readers of either the plain-text or formatted docs. If > you really want to create headings, the heading here should be "Stable > backports" or some such with the question appearing below. But do the > questions really need to be headings? I agree that this is suboptimal. I couldn't come up with a better way of handling this. I think consistently formatting all questions in one way and answers in another make the document far easier to interpret. I had hard time follow the current formatting: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/networking/netdev-FAQ.html#q-i-have-created-a-network-patch-and-i-think-it-should-be-backported-to-stable Is there a more appropriate form of emphasis we could use here? Even if we add independent headings questions should remain emphasised _somehow_ I reckon..
