Re: Fixing 2.6.0's broken documentation references

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:48:57 +1100 (EST) Michael Still <mikal@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/