On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Andrew Morton
wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:24:11 -0600 Rob Landley wrote:
>
>> On 01/29/14 18:27, Henrik Austad wrote:
>> > Some of the 00-INDEX files are somewhat outdated and some folders does not
>> > contain 00-INDEX at all. Only outdated (with the notably
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Andrew Morton
a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:24:11 -0600 Rob Landley r...@landley.net wrote:
On 01/29/14 18:27, Henrik Austad wrote:
Some of the 00-INDEX files are somewhat outdated and some folders does not
contain 00-INDEX at all.
On Sun, 2014-02-02 at 01:04 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> Back before kernel.org did its epic barn door locking after the horses
> escaped, I used to use them to generate HTML indexes for
> kernel.org/doc/Documentation, but sometime after they took away my
> ability to rsync updates to that they
On Sun, 2014-02-02 at 01:04 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
Back before kernel.org did its epic barn door locking after the horses
escaped, I used to use them to generate HTML indexes for
kernel.org/doc/Documentation, but sometime after they took away my
ability to rsync updates to that they
On 01/31/14 16:24, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:24:11 -0600 Rob Landley wrote:
On 01/29/14 18:27, Henrik Austad wrote:
Some of the 00-INDEX files are somewhat outdated and some folders does not
contain 00-INDEX at all. Only outdated (with the notably exception of
spi) indexes
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 02:24:42PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:24:11 -0600 Rob Landley wrote:
>
> > On 01/29/14 18:27, Henrik Austad wrote:
> > > Some of the 00-INDEX files are somewhat outdated and some folders does not
> > > contain 00-INDEX at all. Only outdated (with
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 02:24:42PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:24:11 -0600 Rob Landley r...@landley.net wrote:
On 01/29/14 18:27, Henrik Austad wrote:
Some of the 00-INDEX files are somewhat outdated and some folders does not
contain 00-INDEX at all. Only outdated
On 01/31/14 16:24, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:24:11 -0600 Rob Landley r...@landley.net wrote:
On 01/29/14 18:27, Henrik Austad wrote:
Some of the 00-INDEX files are somewhat outdated and some folders does not
contain 00-INDEX at all. Only outdated (with the notably exception
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:24:11 -0600 Rob Landley wrote:
> On 01/29/14 18:27, Henrik Austad wrote:
> > Some of the 00-INDEX files are somewhat outdated and some folders does not
> > contain 00-INDEX at all. Only outdated (with the notably exception of
> > spi) indexes are touched here, the 169
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:24:11 -0600 Rob Landley r...@landley.net wrote:
On 01/29/14 18:27, Henrik Austad wrote:
Some of the 00-INDEX files are somewhat outdated and some folders does not
contain 00-INDEX at all. Only outdated (with the notably exception of
spi) indexes are touched here, the
that?
Ahem, yes, but not anymore. Leftovers from my initial index-traverse.py
hack. Updated patch below.
henrik
>From 78882b49b0910079aa574781accc9426e215ac78 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Henrik Austad
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:19:10 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Documentation cleanup, update
On 01/29/14 18:27, Henrik Austad wrote:
Some of the 00-INDEX files are somewhat outdated and some folders does not
contain 00-INDEX at all. Only outdated (with the notably exception of
spi) indexes are touched here, the 169 folders without 00-INDEX has not
been touched.
This applies to Linus'
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 01:27:55AM +0100, Henrik Austad wrote:
> Some of the 00-INDEX files are somewhat outdated and some folders does not
> contain 00-INDEX at all. Only outdated (with the notably exception of
> spi) indexes are touched here, the 169 folders without 00-INDEX has not
> been
Some of the 00-INDEX files are somewhat outdated and some folders does not
contain 00-INDEX at all. Only outdated (with the notably exception of
spi) indexes are touched here, the 169 folders without 00-INDEX has not
been touched.
This applies to Linus' tip (0e47c969).
New 00-INDEX
- spi/* was
Some of the 00-INDEX files are somewhat outdated and some folders does not
contain 00-INDEX at all. Only outdated (with the notably exception of
spi) indexes are touched here, the 169 folders without 00-INDEX has not
been touched.
This applies to Linus' tip (0e47c969).
New 00-INDEX
- spi/* was
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 01:27:55AM +0100, Henrik Austad wrote:
Some of the 00-INDEX files are somewhat outdated and some folders does not
contain 00-INDEX at all. Only outdated (with the notably exception of
spi) indexes are touched here, the 169 folders without 00-INDEX has not
been touched.
On 01/29/14 18:27, Henrik Austad wrote:
Some of the 00-INDEX files are somewhat outdated and some folders does not
contain 00-INDEX at all. Only outdated (with the notably exception of
spi) indexes are touched here, the 169 folders without 00-INDEX has not
been touched.
This applies to Linus'
78882b49b0910079aa574781accc9426e215ac78 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Henrik Austad hen...@austad.us
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:19:10 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Documentation cleanup, update 00-INDEX files in
Documentation/
Some of the 00-INDEX files are somewhat outdated and some folders does not
contain 00-INDEX at all. Only
18 matches
Mail list logo
