On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 09:02:52 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > 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.. I poked a little bit more, adding first level headings make the questions smaller which is nice. But they are still headings. Then I watched your presentation from Kernel Recipes which reminded me of the plan to add some per subsystem process files. Which would obsolete this doc :) Since that's a hornet's nest I don't wish to poke I will leave this work for a braver soul :)
