On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 18:48:54 -0800 (PST) Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Nov 2019, Dan Williams wrote: > > > I'm open to updating the headers to make a section heading that > > matches what you're trying to convey, however that header definition > > should be globally agreed upon. I don't want the document that tries > > to clarify per-subsystem behaviours itself to have per-subsystem > > permutations. I think we, subsystem maintainers, at least need to be > > able to agree on the topics we disagree on. > > Unless you're planning to, say, follow up with some kind of automated > process working across all of the profile documents in such a way that it > would make technical sense for the different sections to be standardized, > I personally don't see any need at all for profile document > standardization. As far as I can tell, these documents are meant for > humans, rather than computers, to read. And in the absence of a strong > technical rationale to limit how maintainers express themselves here, I > don't think it's justified. Patch changelogs are (mostly) meant for humans to read too, but we have some standards for how we want them formatted. I don't think the maintainer profiles should be all that tightly specified, but it would be a whole lot better if cross-subsystem developers knew where to look to quickly find the information they need. So I'd prefer it if we could find a way to conform to a set of loose guidelines for these files. Thanks, jon
