On 21.03.22 15:56, Miquel Raynal wrote: > 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]" Maybe. But I think the better approach would be: introduce more specify tags like "Reported:" (and maybe drop "Reported-by" at the same time?) or "BugLink" (some people use that already!) would be better -- and then maybe "Posted:", "Reviewposting", or something like that for the link to the patch that is being applied; and leave "Link" for the rest. I proposed that a while ago, but that didn't get any traction. > 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. Maybe, but OTOH that link is normally at the end, which kinda makes it obvious. > [...] Ciao, Thorsten
