On 8/25/22 00:35, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 5:24 AM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 8/24/22 01:08, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: >>> A quick 'grep "5\.x" . -R' on Documentation shows that README.rst, >>> 2.Process.rst and applying-patches.rst all mention the version number "5.x" >>> for kernel releases. >>> >>> As the next release will be version 6.0, updating the version number to 6.x >>> in README.rst seems reasonable. >>> >>> The description in 2.Process.rst is just a description of recent kernel >>> releases, it was last updated in the beginning of 2020, and can be >>> revisited at any time on a regular basis, independent of changing the >>> version number from 5 to 6. So, there is no need to update this document >>> now when transitioning from 5.x to 6.x numbering. >>> >>> The document applying-patches.rst is probably obsolete for most users >>> anyway, a reader will sufficiently well understand the steps, even it >>> mentions version 5 rather than version 6. So, do not update that to a >>> version 6.x numbering scheme. >> >> Yeah. And I suspect that scripts/patch-kernel is even more obsolete >> than applying-patches.rst. >> > > Randy, would you know if there are still users out there? > Would it help to replace this script with a minimal script that only > reports to "Please use git to obtain a recent repository. Update > versions and apply patches with git in a controlled way.". I have no idea, but I haven't seen any comments or references about it in many years. I think it would be safe to remove it, at least on a trial basis. > If someone complains, we revert the patch. If no one complains within > a year or two, we could consider shutting down the infrastructure > creating those patch archives as well, and delete the documentation > referring to that. Yes, something like that is probably in our future. -- ~Randy
