Re: [PATCH] docs: move riscv under arch

[Conor Dooley]

On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 08:26:38AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 01:29:42PM +0300, Costa Shulyupin wrote:
> >> and fix all in-tree references.
> >> 
> >> Architecture-specific documentation is being moved into Documentation/arch/
> >> as a way of cleaning up the top-level documentation directory and making
> >> the docs hierarchy more closely match the source hierarchy.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Costa Shulyupin <costa.shul@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > This doesn't apply to riscv/for-next or next/master, with git
> > complaining about the sha1 being lacking or useless. What does this
> > actually apply to?
> 
> docs-next, I would guess (though I haven't had a chance to try it).

I'm far from the world's best git-er, but doesn't the lacking or useless
report from git while trying to apply the patches mean that this patch
depended on commit that is not in next/master (which I assume includes
docs-next).

> If
> you would like to carry this through the riscv tree (which is probably
> the most sensible option), I suspect Costa could be talked into
> respinning it...?

I'm not the maintainer of the riscv tree, so not my call.
I was just going through the things that failed in our patchwork
automation and trying to figure out why :)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature