On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 07:52:53 -0300 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Based on the few comments it got on LKML, it seems people are accepting > such renames. I suspect it just hasn't come to the attention of enough people yet. A quick grep through linux-kernel traffic shows a lot of emails with references to Documentation/SubmittingPatches. I'm hesitant to break all those "links" in the archives, and I fear what people may say to me if we tell them they have to reference Documentation/development-process/SubmittingPatches.rst instead. I'm going to make comments on the individual patches shortly. Sorry for being slow - you're a hard guy to keep up with! But I do have a couple of overall thoughts. - We do need to be careful to avoid sacrificing convenient direct access to the text files for nice combined output. For most of the documentation, I don't think there is much of a conflict there. For a few heavily cited files, I worry a bit more. - Documentation/development-process is, as I see it now, on the long and verbose side. I know I suggested it! I wonder if we should use "dev-process" (or even just "process") instead? (Someday I'd like to rename Documentation to something like "doc" to be more in line with the rest of the kernel's naming, but I'll leave that discussion for another day :) - We may want to leave some files in place indefinitely. The list is quite small - SubmittingPatches, CodingStyle, maybe not a whole lot more - but doing that may well avoid much of the eventual pushback. It's worth seeing how hard it would be to get the build process to cope with that; otherwise maybe leaving a symlink in place will do. I'm halfway tempted to revive the documentation thread on the kernel summit list just to see whether I'm being overly nervous or not. Thanks, jon -- 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
