From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762139AbXGMDDh (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:03:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754973AbXGMDDa (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:03:30 -0400 Received: from TYO201.gate.nec.co.jp ([202.32.8.193]:58557 "EHLO tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752041AbXGMDD3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:03:29 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:54:46 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20070713.115446.48513196.tshibata@ab.jp.nec.com> To: rob@landley.net Cc: LeoLi@freescale.com, gh@us.ibm.com, hpa@zytor.com, kunai@linux-foundation.jp, holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lf_kernel_messages@linux-foundation.jp.nec.com, tshibata@ab.jp.nec.com Subject: Re: Documentation of kernel messages (Summary) From: Tsugikazu Shibata In-Reply-To: <200707121335.55817.rob@landley.net> References: <989B956029373F45A0B8AF0297081890F05F2F@zch01exm26.fsl.freescale.net> <200707121335.55817.rob@landley.net> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.2 on Emacs 20.7 / Mule 4.1 =?iso-2022-jp?B?KBskQjAqGyhCKQ==?= 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 Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:35:54 -0400, rob wrote: > On Thursday 12 July 2007 9:53:54 am Li Yang-r58472 wrote: > > > Fielding patches and questions sounds like plenty to me...) > > > > I do think the documentation translation is very necessary even when > > there is a language maintainer, especially for the policy documents as > > HOWTO, codestyle , and etc. The contributors should go through these > > policies and check their code for compliance before going to the > > language maintainer for help, or there will be too much for the language > > maintainer to translate. The language maintainer doesn't need to > > translate all the documents himself, but he can help to coordinate the > > translation effort and help to make it update to date. > > It would help if all the policy documents got grouped into a single > Documentation/development directory so we could separate "policy documents in > each language would be nice" from "that document about the amiga zorro bus > really needs to be kept up-to-date in Navajo and that should be in the kernel > tarball please". > > Lemme see, which ones are we talking about? The candidates are: > applying-patches.txt > BUG-HUNTING > Changes > CodingStyle > debugging-modules.txt This file seems mostly technical. may not policy related document. > feature-removal-schedule.txt > HOWTO > kernel-docs.txt > language-maintainers.txt > ManagementStyle > oops-tracing.txt > SecurityBugs > sparse.txt > stable_api_nonsense.txt > stable_kernel_rules.txt > SubmitChecklist > SubmittingDrivers > SubmittingPatches > volatile-considered-harmful.txt How about adding; kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt These three slightly include some policy in the documents but purpose are mostly technical. (So, it's just comment) devices.txt kernel-parameters.txt unicode.txt > That's everything I noticed in the top level directory that's a good candidate > to be grouped into a "development" subdirectory. Did I miss anything? > > I note that Changes is a bit stale in places (16 bit assembly?), > feature-removal-schedule.txt changes often but is good to know, > kernel-docs.txt might be useless to translate considering it's mostly links > to english documentation, language-maintainers.txt is assuming my patch from > earlier today gets accepted... > > I can submit a patch grouping all that stuff together into a subdirectory if > it would help... > > > If we do need a contact person, I can do it. However I don't think > > there will be much translation work to do here. As I stated before, > > most Chinese programmers are more or less capable of read/write > > technical English. The difficult part is to let them know the benefit > > of merging code in kernel and teach them how to do it. That's why the > > policy documents in native language will be very useful. > > Does the above look like a good list? There are more that need to be written, > but that's what I saw in Documentation... > > Rob > > P.S. Dear kmail/postfix developers: having a transient DNS lookup failure on > one address in a long cc: list is _NOT_ a reason to have the message stay in > the kmail outbox. It should go into the postfix send queue and be retried > from there. Right now, if I tell it to resend, how do I know who it has and > hasn't been successfully distributed to on the first attempt? I've gotten > dinged for trimming the cc: list before, but now I'm about to send out > duplicates. Wheee...