On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 08:07:34 -0300
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mche...@s-opensource.com> wrote:
> That's the 4th version of this series. It also contains a second patch series
> with more ReST conversions and documentation improvements.
> This patchset merges the content of a second patch series:
> [PATCH 00/17] Improve documentation for the development-process
OK, I'm applying these through 28; I'm going to hold off on #29. Thanks
for separating that part out so nicely.
> I opted to keep the patch changing the kernel-docs.txt changes
> (patch 21/29). The patch is already written and another patch
> (patch 22/29) depends on it, because there are references to
> this file at Documentation/HOWTO.
> It shouldn't be hard to get rid of it, but I'm not sure if worths
> the effort. As I commented, people might find useful to update
> it to point to more modern documents. If people won't do it,
> it can still be removed from the Kernel a the next Kernel version.
I'll take them for now, since there seems to be interest in doing something
with this document. I kept the applying-patches one as well. But I do
think that we need to start being a bit more willing to get rid of musty
old docs. We don't carry unused code because "it might be useful to
somebody"; I think we should take the same approach to docs. Out-of-date
or irrelevant docs are a maintenance burden, and they impose a heavy burden
on the people the docs are most meant to help...
A few notes:
#1 didn't apply, I had to do it by hand. I suspect my late application of
Marcus's work got in the way there.
#2 had this:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=true
...which threw git am for a loop; I had to fix it manually. What gives
#4 didn't apply and had to be done by hand.
#10 (CodingStyle) has a lot of ".. code-block:: c" constructs. Why are
those needed? We're still using C by default for literal blocks, right?
#15 (SecurityBugs) leaves the section numbers in place; did you intend
#21 (kernel-docs.txt) had the charset=true weirdness
#28 actually, I balked at applying this one, since it assumes that
the great renaming is taking place, and that hasn't happened yet.
So actually I only went through #27, but that took a long time - seemingly
longer than it takes you to create them! :)
A few of the patches still have the bare "::" lines in them; I think I'll
just add a patch to fix those up real quick.