> 1.) We describe a format for a patch description file.
>
> <snip good stuff>
>
> 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.
Is there any particular reason for downloading them all locally rather
than just looking at the original site?
> 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).
>
Yep.
> 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.
>
I suspect the traffic would still be fairly high, but if they go on
kernel.org I doubt it'll notice too much
> We all prefer the mirrors, aren't we?
>
Not always. My nearest mirror is often 2-3 days late getting kernels, and
I don't like waiting that long :)
-- Mike <rickettm@ox.compsoc.net>There's no easy quick way out, we're gonna have to live through our whole lives, win, lose, or draw. -- Walt Kelly
- 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/