Em Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:20:37 -0700
Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> escreveu:
> On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 11:10 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > 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.
> > Who knows, there might still be value in a discussion of using the patch
> > tool. But I think we should seriously consider making a "historical"
> > section for documents that are nearing or past their expiration dates.
> Or just entirely delete historical document sections.
IMHO, it is best to just delete, or otherwise someone would be tempted
to convert to ReST.
In the specific case of this one, I still think it is has valuable
information. That's why I updated it on patch 17/17 of the second
> All the older kernel sources would still have them so
> I don't see much of a need to keep the archival valued
> documentation bits in the current kernel source tree.
> Suggesting using tools other than git seems wrong today.
Well, while we still generate weekly and per-release patches at
ftp.kernel.org, the information there is still valid.
I have one doubt, however: on this document (and on another converted
one), it mentions about:
ftp.cc.kernel.org, where "cc" is a Country code.
I kept it there (and on another document at the development-process/
Is it still valid? I did some tests from here, and it didn't seem work.
> And thank you Mauro for the relatively thankless effort
> to cleanse and modernize the process documentation.