On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 05:13:20PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> I'm not sure that you understand our workflow. But it doesn't matter; >> it's clear that they are different. In your workflow, the value for the >> tag is subjective. In our workflow, it's not, it's unambiguous. And >> there is really no point in debating the relative merits of the >> workflows. > > I don't see why you think that it's subjective in my workflow. It > isn't. The proposed patch and the officially submitted patch are > generally identical. The difference is, which thread is the more > useful thread to link the patch to - the one with the discussion > about the patch including why it's needed, or the official submission > that contains none of that. In my experience, it's common to have several versions of a patch, often in several threads. If I were to choose which message to reference, other than the patch that was actually applied, I'd feel it would be a subjective choice. > I guess it depends whether you wish to capture the submission itself > or the actual useful discussion about the patch with the tag. If > we're going to be officially defining this tag, then really that > question needs to be settled. > > What worries me at this point is that you seem to want to withdraw > from the discussion before any concensus has been reached, which > presents a problem for Linus' proposed patch... I don't think we can reach a meaningful consensus between ourselves that other people would care about anyway; indeed this sentiment is echoed in Jon's and Ted's replies. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
