On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 07:52:53 -0300
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mche...@s-opensource.com> wrote:
> Based on the few comments it got on LKML, it seems people are accepting
> such renames.
I suspect it just hasn't come to the attention of enough people yet.
A quick grep through linux-kernel traffic shows a lot of emails with
references to Documentation/SubmittingPatches. I'm hesitant to break all
those "links" in the archives, and I fear what people may say to me if we
tell them they have to reference
I'm going to make comments on the individual patches shortly. Sorry for
being slow - you're a hard guy to keep up with! But I do have a couple
of overall thoughts.
- We do need to be careful to avoid sacrificing convenient direct access
to the text files for nice combined output. For most of the
documentation, I don't think there is much of a conflict there. For a
few heavily cited files, I worry a bit more.
- Documentation/development-process is, as I see it now, on the long and
verbose side. I know I suggested it! I wonder if we should use
"dev-process" (or even just "process") instead? (Someday I'd like to
rename Documentation to something like "doc" to be more in line with
the rest of the kernel's naming, but I'll leave that discussion for
another day :)
- We may want to leave some files in place indefinitely. The list is
quite small - SubmittingPatches, CodingStyle, maybe not a whole lot
more - but doing that may well avoid much of the eventual pushback.
It's worth seeing how hard it would be to get the build process to
cope with that; otherwise maybe leaving a symlink in place will do.
I'm halfway tempted to revive the documentation thread on the kernel
summit list just to see whether I'm being overly nervous or not.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html