Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Date: May 6, 2024, 20:17 UTC
Message-ID: <Zjk6v3Y7zJqtPVVq@nand.local>
In-Reply-To: <mdgbdajenbv23r63hreieemielgdtdkwjzb65pdv3b4rylyyxi@4d3eeymtjvva>

On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 12:36:06PM -0700, Josh Steadmon wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> How would you feel about a doc outlining how the process changes as you
> go from: A) small/medium patch series, to B) larger discussions with
> (parts of) the proposal recorded in patches, to C) large discussions
> with no patches? This is the structure I'm leaning towards for my V2
> draft.

That sounds like a reasonable direction to take.

Show 10 quoted lines

> > Another way of thinking about this is that I would be extremely
> > reluctant to see a similar document proposed for reviewing at the patch
> > series level. In my opinion, the system of reviewers and participants
> > discussing the series and the maintainer solely determining whether or
> > not consensus has been reached is a good one, and I would be extremely
> > hesitant to recommend changing it.
>
> Sorry, I'm not sure I understand why you wouldn't want the patch series
> process documented? I'm just trying to capture the status quo, not to
> propose or recommend any changes.

Apologies, I misspoke here. I don't mean to say that such a document shouldn't exist, but rather that I'd be hesitant to see a prescriptive document outlining how patches are reviewed at too granular a level.

Having a document like Documentation/ReviewingGuidelines.txt makes sense to me and seems like a good thing to keep.

Thanks, Taylor