On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 10:39:24AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 11:25:57 +0000 > Lorenzo Stoakes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I don't really read that as grumpy, I understand wanting to be agreeable > > > > but sometimes it's appropriate to be emphatic, which is the entire > > > > purpose > > > > of this amendment. > > > > > > > > Taking into account Jens's input too: > > > > > > > > +If tools permit you to generate series automatically, expect > > > > +additional scrutiny in proportion to how much of it was generated. > > > > + > > > > +As with the output of any tooling, the result maybe incorrect or > > > > +inappropriate, so you are expected to understand and to be able to > > > > defend > > > > +everything you submit. If you are unable to do so, then don't submit > > > > the > > > > +resulting changes. > > > > + > > > > +If you do so anyway, maintainers are entitled to reject your series > > > > without > > > > +detailed review. > > I like it.
Hmm, you like my version but then below argue against every point I make in favour of it? I'm confused? Did you mean to say you liked a suggested other revision or... really this one? :) If so and Dave likes it too then LGTM, pending any Linus/other veto. For the rest of your email - a lawyer would say 'asked and answered'. I've responded to every point of yours there about 3 times apiece across the thread and I don't think it's a good use of time to loop around on things! Cheers, Lorenzo
