Re: [PATCH v3 05/21] Documentation/applying-patches.txt: convert it to ReST markup

From: Joe Perches
Date: Fri Sep 16 2016 - 13:20:51 EST

On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 11:10 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:06:34 -0300 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> - use the correct markup to identify each section;
> - Add some blank lines for Sphinx to properly interpret
>   the markups;
> - Remove a blank space on some paragraphs;
> - Fix the verbatim and bold markups;
> - Cleanup the remaining errors to make Sphinx happy.

> So I certainly don't have a problem with the changes made to this file, but
> there is some discomfort at a higher level:
> +Last update:
> + 2006-01-05
> I have to wonder what the value of a document saying how to FTP the patch
> and move up to 2.6.13 is in 2016.

> Who knows, there might still be value in a discussion of using the patch
> tool. But I think we should seriously consider making a "historical"
> section for documents that are nearing or past their expiration dates.

Or just entirely delete historical document sections.

All the older kernel sources would still have them so
I don't see much of a need to keep the archival valued
documentation bits in the current kernel source tree.

Suggesting using tools other than git seems wrong today.

And thank you Mauro for the relatively thankless effort
to cleanse and modernize the process documentation.