On 05/23/2013 07:49:57 AM, Ben Minerds wrote:
Replacing refs to broken URL with internal documentation reference,
and a
little whitespace shuffle to keep it under 80 chars wide.
Signed-off-by: Ben Minerds <puzzleduck@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/HOWTO | 10 +++++-----
Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 2 +-
Documentation/ja_JP/HOWTO | 8 ++++----
Documentation/ja_JP/SubmittingPatches | 2 +-
Documentation/ko_KR/HOWTO | 2 +-
Documentation/zh_CN/HOWTO | 2 +-
Documentation/zh_CN/SubmittingPatches | 2 +-
7 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/HOWTO b/Documentation/HOWTO
index 11e597e..fba34c0 100644
--- a/Documentation/HOWTO
+++ b/Documentation/HOWTO
@@ -110,11 +110,11 @@ required reading:
subject to scrutiny for content and style), but not following
them
will almost always prevent it.
- Other excellent descriptions of how to create patches properly
are:
- "The Perfect Patch"
-
Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
- "Linux kernel patch submission format"
- http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html
+ Other excellent descriptions of how to create patches properly are:
+ "The Perfect Patch"
+ Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
+ "Linux kernel patch submission format"
+
Documentation/development-process/patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt
Ok, this is the third consecutive patch to do approximately the same
thing, and now you're patching lines you added in a previous patch in
the same series.
Breaking files up into stages helps with bisectability. Are we really
going to "git bisect" documentation?
On the larger question of "is this a good idea", I'm leaning towards
"no" and would like you to explain why an 8 year old description
duplicating portions of SubmittingPatches needs to be in-tree.
Rob--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
