Em Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:10:26 -0600
Jonathan Corbet <cor...@lwn.net> escreveu:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:06:34 -0300
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mche...@s-opensource.com> wrote:
>
> > - use the correct markup to identify each section;
> >
> > - Add some blank lines for Sphinx to properly interpret
> > the markups;
> >
> > - Remove a blank space on some paragraphs;
> >
> > - Fix the verbatim and bold markups;
> >
> > - Cleanup the remaining errors to make Sphinx happy.
>
> So I certainly don't have a problem with the changes made to this file, but
> there is some discomfort at a higher level:
>
> > +Last update:
> > + 2006-01-05
>
> I have to wonder what the value of a document saying how to FTP the patch
> and move up to 2.6.13 is in 2016.
As you're commenting my first patch series, I suspect you didn't
see the second one yet ;)
Its subject is:
[PATCH 00/17] Improve documentation for the development-process
There, I read all files that were moved to the development-process
dir, and updated some things. I didn't read yet the files that were
already there, but, as they're newer, I suspect they should be
more synchronized with the status quo.
In the case of this file, I updated it to point to 4.x, removed some
legacy stuff, like the -git tarballs and updated the parts that
mention the -mm kernels, adding a notice about linux-next.
The patch is at:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9332673/
>
> Who knows, there might still be value in a discussion of using the patch
> tool.
Well, it teaches how to use the "patch" tool, with can be useful
for newbies. It also explains how the incremental and non-incremental
Kernel patches work. So, I guess it is still useful.
> But I think we should seriously consider making a "historical"
> section for documents that are nearing or past their expiration dates.
>
> jon
Thanks,
Mauro
