Thorsten, regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 21 Mar 2022 13:51:10 +0100: > On 21.03.22 13:35, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > > > regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 21 Mar 2022 12:48:11 +0100: > > > >> On 16.03.22 16:54, Tokunori Ikegami wrote: > >>> As pointed out by this bug report [1], buffered writes are now broken on > >>> S29GL064N. This issue comes from a rework which switched from using chip_good() > >>> to chip_ready(), because DQ true data 0xFF is read on S29GL064N and an error > >>> returned by chip_good(). One way to solve the issue is to revert the change > >>> partially to use chip_ready for S29GL064N. > >>> > >>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > >> > >> Why did you switch from the documented format for links you added on my > >> request (see > >> https://lore.kernel.org/stable/f1b44e87-e457-7783-d46e-0d577cea3b72@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > >> > >> ) to v2 to something else that is not recognized by tools and scripts > >> that rely on proper link tags? You are making my and maybe other peoples > >> life unnecessary hard. :-(( > >> > >> FWIW, the proper style should support footnote style like this: > >> > >> Link: > >> https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > >> [1] > >> > >> Ciao, Thorsten > >> > >> #regzbot ^backmonitor: > >> https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > >> > > > > Because today's requirement from maintainers is to provide a Link > > tag that points to the mail discussion of the patch being applied. > > That can be an additional Link tag, that is done all the time. > > > I > > then asked to use the above form instead to point to the bug report > > because I don't see the point of having a "Link" tag for it? Perhaps I should emphasize that I don't remember your initial request regarding the use of a Link tag and my original idea was to help this contributor, not kill your tools which I actually know very little about. > But it's not your own project, we are all working with thousands of > people together on this project on various different fronts. That needs > coordination, as some things otherwise become hard or impossible. That's > why we have documentation that explains how to do some things. Not > following it just because you don't like it is not helpful and in this > case makes my life as a volunteer a lot harder. Let's be honest, you are referring to a Documentation patch that *you* wrote and was merged into Linus' tree mid January. How often do you think people used to the contribution workflow monitor these files? I am totally fine enforcing the use of Link: tags if this is what has been decided, just don't expect everybody to switch to a style rather than another over a night. > If you don't like the approach explained by the documentation, submit a > patch adjusting the documentation and then we can talk about this. But > until that is applied please stick to the format explained by the > documentation. This is uselessly condescending. Thanks, Miquèl
