1.) We describe a format for a patch description file.
This file should have a header and a body - seperated by a blank line.
The header contains hederlines in the format "headername, colon,
whitespace, content\n". The most importand headers i think of are e.g.:
Name: Name of the patch
Description: Short description of what the patch does
Version: Current version of the patch
Kernelver: Kernel version it is for
Date: Relase Date and Time of this Patch
Desc-URL: URL of this description file
Patch-URL: URL of the patch itself
The body would than contain a more detailed description of the patch with
all advantages and disadvatages.
2.) Writeing a few scripts they can update a local copy of all description
files by downloading the newest version and building a website from
the description files. The list of patches is maintained by hand by a
Maintainer to keep the archive clean (i.e. no bugfixes - again: this
is not thought for bugfixes - it's thought for improvements).
So we could have a allways up-to-date and clean archive of all patches to
the linux kernel. The traffic wouldn't be that much becouse the patches
temself are still at the primary site - the archive would conatin only the
metadata.
An archive of all patches and description files can be build by another
little script and could be downloaded from kernel.org and all of it's
mirrors. We all prefer the mirrors, aren't we?
What do you think about this?
- clifford
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Clifford Wolf (CEO and CTO)
The ROCK Projects Workgoup IRC: IRCnet / clifford
http://www.rock-projects.com/ http://www.clifford.at/
e-mail: c.wolf@rock-projects.com email: god@clifford.at
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/