From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751290AbdBXHuV (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2017 02:50:21 -0500 Received: from mail-wr0-f194.google.com ([209.85.128.194]:33270 "EHLO mail-wr0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751190AbdBXHuN (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2017 02:50:13 -0500 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 08:50:02 +0100 From: Daniel Vetter To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Joe Perches , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: Make CodingStyle and SubmittingPatches symlinks Message-ID: <20170224075002.wfjmlsv7bokrlmk6@phenom.ffwll.local> Mail-Followup-To: Jonathan Corbet , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Joe Perches , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <4a5d167c038ac98c51bd034855f1dca9a3e0f6fb.1484086131.git.joe@perches.com> <20170113124135.7873b9c7@lwn.net> <1484337804.3065.36.camel@perches.com> <20170123083458.25b35a4d@vento.lan> <20170214143438.668a7c5b@lwn.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170214143438.668a7c5b@lwn.net> X-Operating-System: Linux phenom 4.8.0-1-amd64 User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 02:34:38PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 08:34:58 -0200 > Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > The main difference between a "pointer file" and a symlink is that the > > first indicates a temporary solution, teaching people that the > > file got renamed and were it is located now. As such, we can remove > > those "pointer files" on some future Kernel releases without much concern. > > > > A symlink indicates a more permanent situation, as people will keep > > using the symlinked files as before. That means that any attempt to > > remove those in the future will generate concerns. > > > > So, I'm in favor of using the "pointer files" instead, as it > > gives us an easier way to get rid of them when we find convenient. > > So you've all long since forgotten this discussion, I'm sure, but I've > been pondering it on and off for quite a while. > > The movement of some of the more well-known documents has been a concern > of mine from the beginning; that is why I delayed those changes for > a cycle and raised the issue at a number of conferences, culminating in > the kernel summit in November. I got a strong sense of consensus that we > should go ahead and move the files. > > As Mauro says, symlinks are forever; they say we'll never really succeed > in rationalizing the structure of Documentation/. But we don't nail down > the location of any other files in the kernel source tree in this manner, > and my own feeling is that we shouldn't do that here either. The kernel > source tree is not an API. So my thinking at the moment is that we should > retain the current "pointer files" in the vague hope that, someday, we > won't need them anymore. It's a tricky balance, but I think your stance is reasonable and seems to reflect overall consensus (which might chance, we'll see). +1 from my side. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch