Alexander Berntsen posted on Mon, 23 May 2016 12:56:06 +0200 as excerpted:
> When submitting v2-patches, please submit them in-reply-to=the message
> ID of the original thread.
It isn't mandatory here and many ignore it, but many readers (like me)
and more importantly reviewers find a short, often one-line description
of what changed between versions useful as well. A multi-revision patch
will thus have a mini-changelog of what happened at each revision. While
not mandatory here, it is considered so on many lists including most linux
kernel related lists.
> The patch looks OK, but I don't recall us using the "OBSOLETE" phrase in
> any documentation. Does anybody know any phrase we should be using
> instead, and why we should be using that phrase instead?
>
> Maybe we should pick a term ("OBSOLETE" is fine by me), and make it
> "official" for these situations in the future.
No argument with obsolete here, but as long as the option is still
allowed (even if ignored) for backward compatibility, isn't "deprecated"
the usual term?
Then "obsolete" can be reserved for continued listing (for historical
reasons...) after the option is no longer allowed (whether it directly
triggers an error or simply isn't processed at all, thus likely
triggering an indirect error due to incorrect parsing of other options
and parameters on the command line).
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
