Em Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:10:26 -0600 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:06:34 -0300 > Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > - use the correct markup to identify each section; > > > > - Add some blank lines for Sphinx to properly interpret > > the markups; > > > > - Remove a blank space on some paragraphs; > > > > - Fix the verbatim and bold markups; > > > > - Cleanup the remaining errors to make Sphinx happy. > > So I certainly don't have a problem with the changes made to this file, but > there is some discomfort at a higher level: > > > +Last update: > > + 2006-01-05 > > I have to wonder what the value of a document saying how to FTP the patch > and move up to 2.6.13 is in 2016. As you're commenting my first patch series, I suspect you didn't see the second one yet ;) Its subject is: [PATCH 00/17] Improve documentation for the development-process There, I read all files that were moved to the development-process dir, and updated some things. I didn't read yet the files that were already there, but, as they're newer, I suspect they should be more synchronized with the status quo. In the case of this file, I updated it to point to 4.x, removed some legacy stuff, like the -git tarballs and updated the parts that mention the -mm kernels, adding a notice about linux-next. The patch is at: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9332673/ > > Who knows, there might still be value in a discussion of using the patch > tool. Well, it teaches how to use the "patch" tool, with can be useful for newbies. It also explains how the incremental and non-incremental Kernel patches work. So, I guess it is still useful. > But I think we should seriously consider making a "historical" > section for documents that are nearing or past their expiration dates. > > jon Thanks, Mauro -- 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
