From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262110AbTL1WIO (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:08:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262111AbTL1WIN (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:08:13 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:13960 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262110AbTL1WIM (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:08:12 -0500 Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:02:20 -0800 From: "Randy.Dunlap" To: Michael Still Cc: tmolina@cablespeed.com, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@n-dimensional.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Fixing 2.6.0's broken documentation references Message-Id: <20031228140220.718f2e91.rddunlap@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: References: Organization: OSDL X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:48:57 +1100 (EST) Michael Still wrote: | On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Thomas Molina wrote: | | > I agree that having a documentation maintainer would be a good idea. Hans | > could volunteer or I could if no one else wants it. Whoever does it | > though, needs some assurance that patches won't be dropped on the floor. | | I would think that any such maintainer would also have to deal with | kernel-doc, and making sure all of those scripts work / don't produce | errors. I got a bunch of patches into the late 2.5 cycle to deal with | that, but someone needs to keep that stuff working. | | I'm happy to keep playing with those scripts, if other people are happy | with that. | | My point is that documentation is more complex than just keeping the | comments in the source pointing at the right places -- there is a bunch of | infrastructure there as well. | | On the dropped patch front, I had a lot of success getting patches into | the kernel via the Trivial Patch Monkey. Given the menial nature of this | sort of work, wouldn't this best be done by the janitors and sending | patches to trivial? I agree, using kernel-janitors or trivial patch monkey should be sufficient and acceptable. -- ~Randy