I know, but I believe they are still good documents if read with a bit of pragmatism: many concepts there are evergreen. Then, it clearly says "unreliable" ;P Your wonder, make me wonder. Generally speaking, how readers can understand how old is a document or if it still correct (in the sense that the document and the correspondent code are in sync)? Clearly here it says that it has been written for Linux 2.6, but most documents do not say anything about the last significant review/update. This let people think that documentation and code are always in sync. How this is handled? Just by enforcing people to update the documentation when they change, for example, an interface that has been documented? On Friday, July 27, 2018 12:23:30 AM CEST Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 00:05:17 +0200 > > Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This patch includes the kernel-hacking translation in Italian (both > > hacking.rst and locking.rst). > > > > It adds also the anchors for the english kernel-hacking documents. > > Applied, thanks. Though I do have to wonder a bit, since these documents > are ancient and haven't seen a lot of maintenance in recent times... > > jon -- Federico Vaga http://www.federicovaga.it/ -- 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
