[PATCH weston 4/4] doc: Use GitLab MRs for patches, not the list

[Daniel Stone]

Hi Pekka,

On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 12:05, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm happy to move to MR-based work flow immediately.

\o/

> From the above link, I found this:
> http://www.bitsnbites.eu/git-history-work-log-vs-recipe/
> which explain the below in more words. Maybe include this link as well?
>
> Linear history doesn't exactly imply "recipe" history, we want both. I
> only came to think of the differences after reading both of the above
> links.

Yeah, good point. I've just changed it to include the recipe link:
linear history is a far less important detail than the recipe side.

> Patches 1 and 2:
> Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen at collabora.co.uk>
>
> Patch 4 also R-b with fixes, and patch 3 practically as well.
>
> Oh wait, the rename of README to README.md will probably drop the file
> from the dist tar-ball, since it's not auto-magic by autotools anymore.
> CONTRIBUTING.md should also be added to dist. And the screenshot.jpg.
>
> Should we start with Gitlab MRs already, but merge the doc patches only
> after the final release, as per our documented release process?

Thanks, I'll resubmit now. I am keen to avoid a situation where we
have a mismatch between what we do (GitLab MRs) and the contribution
documentation (mailing list). I think it would be great to get these
in the release, since they carry no risk of code regression, and mean
that anyone reading from the release will immediately see how to
contribute properly.

Cheers,
Daniel