Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/26] Make reporting-bugs easier to grasp and yet more detailed & helpful

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Am 19.11.20 um 01:29 schrieb Jonathan Corbet:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 11:13:52 +0100
> Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > So I've not had a chance to try to read through the whole thing again,
> > > will try to do so in the near future.
> > Great, thx, looking forward to it.
> OK, I have made a *quick* pass through the whole thing and sent a small
> number of comments separately.

Great, thx, much appreciated.

> There are things that could be tweaked
> (there always will be) but I'm not sure we should worry about those yet.
> I would suggest doing this:
>
>   - Collapse the whole thing down to a patch adding reporting-bugs-v2.rst
>     (or some suitable name).

Maybe just "reporting-issues.rst" or "reporting-issues-wip.rst". The 
text talks about issues anyway and rarely uses the word "bug".

>  I do wonder if it should also move to the
>     process manual as part of this; not only admins will report bugs.


I had wondered about this myself a few weeks ago, but I assumed someone 
had good reasons to put it in the admin section.

/me looks closer

Hmmm, now I'm unsure myself where to place it:

 * Documentation/admin/ is introduced as "The Linux kernel user’s and 
administrator’s guide" 
(https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/admin-guide/). So maybe it's the 
right place that just uses a directory name that's easily misunderstood :-/

 * the process section starts with the words "So you want to be a Linux 
kernel developer? Welcome!" 
(https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/). That might be a bit 
intimidating for people that just want to report a bug.

I guess it's best if you decide.

>   - Add a comment at the top saying it's a proposed replacement and
>     soliciting comments.  You could also put some of your other questions
>     into the text for now and see if anybody reacts.
>
>   - In a separate patch you could add a comment to the existing document
>     pointing to the new one as the true source of wisdom.

Will do.

>   - Dual licensed CC-SA-4.0 is fine with me.  CC-BY is OK if you really
>     want to do it that way.  

I'm unsure and would appreciate options from others here.

Here are some of my thoughts about this:

What do we loose by dual-licensing it under a liberal license like 
CC-BY? It afaics makes it a lot more attractive for websites or books 
authors to use this text as a base, as they don't need to fear that 
"share alike" or the GPL might have consequences on the surroundings. 
I'd say that's a good thing for the kernel, as it increases the chances 
the texts built upon ours remain close to what we expect on this topic.

That's why I currently think using CC-BY is a good idea.

> Either way, though, you'll need to add the
>     license itself under LICENSES/preferred before it can go into the SPDX
>     tag.

Agh, yes, of course, will keep it in mind when above point is settled.

Ciao, Thorsten