On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 08:38:13PM +0000, Chris Mason wrote: > Agree here. Mailing lists make it really hard to figure out when these > conflicts are resolved, which is why I love using google docs for that part. I would caution that Google docs aren't universally accessible. China blocks access to many Google resources, and now Russia purportedly does the same. Perhaps a similar effect can be reached with a git repository with limited commit access? At least then commits can be attested to individual authors. > A living document with a single source of truth on key design points, work > remaining, and stakeholders who are responsible for ack/nack decisions. > Basically if you don’t have edit permissions on the document, you’re not one > of the people that can say no. > > If you do have edit permissions, you’re expected to be on board with the > overall goal and help work through the design/validation/code/etc until > you’re ready to ack it, or until it’s clear the whole thing isn’t going to > work. If you feel you need to have edit permissions, you’ve got a defined > set of people to talk with about it. > > It can’t completely replace the mailing lists, but it can take a lot of the > archeology out of understanding a given patch series and figuring out if > it’s actually ready to go. You can combine the two and use mailing lists as the source of truth by using Link: tags in commits to make it easy to verify history and provenance. -K
