Am 19.11.20 um 01:29 schrieb Jonathan Corbet:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 11:13:52 +0100
Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So I've not had a chance to try to read through the whole thing again,
will try to do so in the near future.
Great, thx, looking forward to it.
OK, I have made a *quick* pass through the whole thing and sent a small
number of comments separately.
Great, thx, much appreciated.
There are things that could be tweaked
(there always will be) but I'm not sure we should worry about those yet.
I would suggest doing this:
- Collapse the whole thing down to a patch adding reporting-bugs-v2.rst
(or some suitable name).
Maybe just "reporting-issues.rst" or "reporting-issues-wip.rst". The
text talks about issues anyway and rarely uses the word "bug".
I do wonder if it should also move to the
process manual as part of this; not only admins will report bugs.
I had wondered about this myself a few weeks ago, but I assumed someone
had good reasons to put it in the admin section.
/me looks closer
Hmmm, now I'm unsure myself where to place it:
* Documentation/admin/ is introduced as "The Linux kernel user’s and
administrator’s guide"
(https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/admin-guide/). So maybe it's the
right place that just uses a directory name that's easily misunderstood :-/
* the process section starts with the words "So you want to be a Linux
kernel developer? Welcome!"
(https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/). That might be a bit
intimidating for people that just want to report a bug.
I guess it's best if you decide.
- Add a comment at the top saying it's a proposed replacement and
soliciting comments. You could also put some of your other questions
into the text for now and see if anybody reacts.
- In a separate patch you could add a comment to the existing document
pointing to the new one as the true source of wisdom.
Will do.
- Dual licensed CC-SA-4.0 is fine with me. CC-BY is OK if you really
want to do it that way.
I'm unsure and would appreciate options from others here.
Here are some of my thoughts about this:
What do we loose by dual-licensing it under a liberal license like
CC-BY? It afaics makes it a lot more attractive for websites or books
authors to use this text as a base, as they don't need to fear that
"share alike" or the GPL might have consequences on the surroundings.
I'd say that's a good thing for the kernel, as it increases the chances
the texts built upon ours remain close to what we expect on this topic.
That's why I currently think using CC-BY is a good idea.
Either way, though, you'll need to add the
license itself under LICENSES/preferred before it can go into the SPDX
tag.
Agh, yes, of course, will keep it in mind when above point is settled.
Ciao, Thorsten
