Hi Thorsten, regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:17:50 +0100: > On 21.03.22 14:41, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > 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 > > Happen, no worries. > > > 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 > > Correct, but in case of submitting-patches it was just a clarification > how to place links; why the whole aspect was missing in the other is > kinda odd and likely lost in history... > > > and was merged into Linus' tree mid January. How often do you > > think people used to the contribution workflow monitor these files? > > Not often, that's why I have no problem pointing it out, even if that's > slightly annoying. But you can imagine that it felt kinda odd on my side > when asking someone to set the links (with references to the docs > explaining how to set them) and seeing them added then in v2, just so > see they vanished again in v3 of the same patch. :-/ I fully understand. I actually learned that these tags had to be used for this purpose, so I will actually enforce their use in my next reviews. Just a side question, should the Documentation also mention how to refer to links for people not used to it? Something like [5.Posting.rst]: "Link: <link> [1] Link: <link> [2]" My original point was that maintainers would almost always add a Link tag at the end, containing the mailing-list thread about the patch being applied. Just saying in the commit log "see the link below" then becomes misleading. > > 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. > > I don't. > > >> 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. > > I apologize, it wasn't meant that way. No worries, thanks :-) > I had to many discussions already > where people were not setting any links and it seems the topic is slowly > hitting a nerve here. Sorry. I also feel like I am repeating myself sometimes. And then I remember Rob and the ton of e-mails where he has to repeat himself hundreds of times a day and I feel slightly better :-p Cheers, Miquèl
