From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEE81B654; Sun, 3 Mar 2024 18:19:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709490000; cv=none; b=Q18EmG47ltar6s/M5ct1T8yblumlHD/aBpOvbgHWbzp+ZgMCZIqN/4zEJ/l9iwhAXW8IUrw+pkAjf33awHyTgUVpDafzQWXxqtKuSJUj4iMmnTWvUVJ1BdjT8Pg0+MYwrTUl050OIDiSUboAFwPuPQR3FVDxshe8zulsUiEndY8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709490000; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OpFUZkht/kNkK1sffj4iZQMCp1wCBtb91Rpt3Ft7ccA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=AFwlgYuYwcc22MhGGl996cGQwhCJxUvyk9JdQaVyUQrwRSPdnHmy/b458w+oEjd/9YH6PXtAUqyZx0yf9fFx28eONzDnW/+M/cH3zyVq1MxjMdzgt0efqTj59JKONUTZqM5ov1SVHIjpx/zKhE9s2j/pvGH9Rnmtbbisw4A98Sk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=22aNaIbi; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="22aNaIbi" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=4Zprqxh0tqZFACIsoF0C+/8aiRekfRqNvxtqcVAY67w=; b=22aNaIbicw0tEK5jEEVEjslKJT cvZ6D2p0pwLk7niNKqQNrnSlCS88e2po8vaO1wtQKIiutVD9GNp3lBxxTZmIq4jMKo+bmZL83RnMr Ho///zFagi5/fdPZsReW1qUxHwAQ6x6tdewFaEOXBNaUAiEDoCDxQw+G9cgsXYmxiFp8M3pg6fSpE pVA26IeTPBK/P83hPMtIVRmySELsumRYukFcU0zlYIE6tNaH5sQrairFuMx+zompNAxO1dLZhBPHA fJ2TZd+dAdRpISKjYpHA35hTVnLen4Jb5j4piT1niUZoGvO7aHZLSDGgG8abqp3ZD6eUR420gDAAh S1z9Pjeg==; Received: from [50.53.50.0] (helo=[192.168.254.15]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rgqRG-00000006SaN-2aT9; Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:19:54 +0000 Message-ID: <04c07ca9-6377-4326-b9b5-4a4ed49c2f66@infradead.org> Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2024 10:19:54 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] docs: submit-checklist: change to autonumbered lists Content-Language: en-US To: Jonathan Corbet , Akira Yokosawa , lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com Cc: jani.nikula@intel.com, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org References: <20240229030743.9125-4-lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> <8df0c587-8f5b-4523-89d7-dc458ab2c1df@gmail.com> <8734t7z4vs.fsf@meer.lwn.net> From: Randy Dunlap In-Reply-To: <8734t7z4vs.fsf@meer.lwn.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 3/3/24 07:55, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Akira Yokosawa writes: > >>> -1) If you use a facility then #include the file that defines/declares >>> +#. If you use a facility then #include the file that defines/declares >>> that facility. Don't depend on other header files pulling in ones >>> that you use. >> >> Wait. This will render the list starting from: >> >> 1. If you use ... >> I have already said that Stephen Rothwell wanted this #1 item to be at the top of the checklist. That makes it easy to tell people to "see submit-checklist item #1". >> In patch 1/1, you didn't change the ")". >> >> It was Jani who suggested "#.", but "#)" would work just fine. > > So I'm a little confused. Is the objection that it renders the number > as "1." rather than "1)"? That doesn't seem like the biggest of deals, > somehow, but am I missing something? > > A bigger complaint I might raise is that auto-numbering restarts the > enumeration in each subsection, so we have a lot of steps #1, which is a > definite change from before. ack > That, of course, can be fixed by giving an explicit starting number in > each subsection, partially defeating the point of the change in the > first place. ack > I honestly have to wonder: does this document need the enumerated list > at all? We don't refer to the numbers anywhere, so I don't think there > is much useful information there. How about just using regular bulleted > lists instead? That also works. > That said, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, and can > certainly apply it as-is if that's the consensus on what we should do. My preference is to leave the submit-checklist numbered from 1 to N, without a repeated #1 in each section. But I'm not hung up on it. thanks. -- #Randy