Re: [PATCH v3 05/21] Documentation/applying-patches.txt: convert it to ReST markup

From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@infradead.org>,
	Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@darmarit.de>,
	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/21] Documentation/applying-patches.txt: convert it to ReST markup
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:36:31 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160916183631.78ab4758@vento.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1474046437.32273.80.camel@perches.com>

Em Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:20:37 -0700
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> escreveu:

> On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 11:10 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:06:34 -0300 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com> 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.  
> 
> > Who knows, there might still be value in a discussion of using the patch
> > tool.  But I think we should seriously consider making a "historical"
> > section for documents that are nearing or past their expiration dates.  
> 
> Or just entirely delete historical document sections.

IMHO, it is best to just delete, or otherwise someone would be tempted
to convert to ReST.

In the specific case of this one, I still think it is has valuable
information. That's why I updated it on patch 17/17 of the second
patch series.

> All the older kernel sources would still have them so
> I don't see much of a need to keep the archival valued
> documentation bits in the current kernel source tree.
> 
> Suggesting using tools other than git seems wrong today.

Well, while we still generate weekly and per-release patches at
ftp.kernel.org, the information there is still valid.

I have one doubt, however: on this document (and on another converted
one), it mentions about:

	ftp.cc.kernel.org, where "cc" is a Country code.

I kept it there (and on another document at the development-process/
dir).

Is it still valid? I did some tests from here, and it didn't seem work.

> And thank you Mauro for the relatively thankless effort
> to cleanse and modernize the process documentation.

Anytime!

Thanks,
Mauro