[alsa-devel] [PATCH 00/13] Get rid of DocBook

[Kees Cook]

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
<mchehab at s-opensource.com> wrote:
> Em Sun, 14 May 2017 14:05:09 -0700
> Kees Cook <keescook at chromium.org> escreveu:
>
>> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
>> <mchehab at s-opensource.com> wrote:
>> > As just one book (lsm) was missing conversion, let's convert it
>> > and store as if it were a plain text file under Documentation/lsm.txt,
>> > adding a notice that it requires update.
>>
>> I could probably fold this change into my rst-ification of
>> Documentation/security/
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/log/?h=kspp/rst
>>
>> Specifically, the new Documentation/security/LSM.rst was rather short.
>> I think your lsm.txt and this one could be likely merged.
>
> Yeah, makes sense. I'm not sure what would be the best way to
> proceed, as, currently, after removing lsm.tmpl, my patch
> series remove DocBook, as everything else was already removed.
>
> I see a few ways for us to proceed:
>
> 1) You could submit the patches you have so far to docs -next,
> to be merged before my patch series;

I sent my series already (it got CCed to linux-doc); it's collected a
few Acks already. I'm not sure what the timing for that means, though.

> 2) I could send you a patch based on your tree. I'll need to
> rebase this series to be applied on the top of your tree + docs-next,
> with would require that your patch series would be merged before,
> at docs -next;
>
> 3) we can handle both series independently. When both gets
> merged at docs -next, a simple patch, either written by you or
> me, could merge both files.

I don't see a reason for us to make the trees depend on each other.
Let's just proceed as-is and whenever we're in a position to merge the
LSM docs, we can do that.

> IMO, (3) is simpler, but if you prefer, we can do on some other
> way.

Agreed.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security