> Mark> ...or you can use: http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/hg.1.html > > Mark> (and then this works for off-SWAN folks) > > True, but there could be confusion in the future, if the web page on > selenic.com refers to a version that is different from what's bundled in > (Open)Solaris.
Yeah, that's a possibility I hadn't anticipated. Eventually, we'll likely need this capability from opensolaris.org, I suppose. For now I think that slightly-futuristic manpages might be preferable to internal-only manpages. :( > Mark> http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/Pull > Mark> http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/Merge > Mark> http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/hg.1.html#diff > > This has the same possible consistency issue as above. But if you think > the benefits of having hyperlinks here outweigh the confusion risk, I > could certainly put in these links (and use selenic.com for the hg man > page link). Let me know what you want to do. Yeah, I think we should use the selenic links. >>> A draft putback.html and diffs are also available. > > Mark> First bullet: it might be time to lose "sparc" vs "sparcv9" > Mark> differentiation. > > Sure; removed. Thanks. > Mark> Missing bullet item: after the "header file" and "EXPORT_SRC" > Mark> items, do we need something about open-only builds? > > Good idea. I've added a bullet about that. Looks good. > Mark> "All relevant machine architectures" now includes sun4v, dom0, and > Mark> domU. > > I've added those. Is it worth distinguishing "sun4v" from "MP sun4v"? No, in fact I think that abstracting UP vs MP might be a single bullet item, rather than one for each arch. > Mark> We still do adb? :) > > I took out the adb reference. Cool. > Mark> Should "CDE" be something else now? > > Changed to "GNOME/JDS". Thanks. > Mark> For the versioning info link, we do NOT want to refer to spec > Mark> files. Rod will hunt us down and kill us. We should point this > Mark> to /ws/onnv-gate/usr/src/lib/README.mapfiles. And the last part > Mark> of that sentence ("...for updating/creating..." can be whacked. > > Okay, I've made the changes that you requested, but please review that > bullet to see if more work is needed. Is 2002/300 still the right PSARC > case to point people at? I think we just get rid of that sentence. The README really is canonical for our purposes. For the README link, by adding the "/ws/onnv-clone" into the URL, you avoid using the source code browser template from onnv.sfbay. (In other words, if the URL is http://onnv.sfbay/usr/src/lib/README.mapfiles, you get a browser instead of just a file display.) But that's a moot point, because when I went to look, I figured that we should probably be using http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/lib/README.mapfiles anyway. > Mark> As Rich pointed out, the req.flg should be worded in a way that > Mark> makes it clear that it's still relevant, mainly for xref. Maybe > Mark> something like "Did you update any appropriate req.flg files, so > Mark> that 'make cscope' in the directories you're changing will pull in > Mark> the appropriate context for these changes?" > > I reworded that item; please review. Looks good. > Rich also suggested a reminder to review diffs, so I added that (before > the one for pbchk). Seems reasonable. > I've posted a new version of putback.html and putback.diffs.txt, and > I've added diffs since the previous version (for putback.html). One final nit: the mailto link for "the Gatekeepers" should be gatekeeper@ instead of gk at . --Mark
