linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] doc:it_IT: translation for kernel-hacking

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1944849.qmSSJrysef@pcbe13614>
Date:   Fri, 27 Jul 2018 09:46:47 +0200
From:   Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alessia Mantegazza <amantegazza@...a.pv.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] doc:it_IT: translation for kernel-hacking

I know, but I believe they are still good documents if read with a bit of 
pragmatism: many concepts there are evergreen. Then, it clearly says 
"unreliable" ;P

Your wonder, make me wonder. Generally speaking, how readers can understand 
how old is a document or if it still correct (in the sense that the document 
and the correspondent code are in sync)? Clearly here it says that it has been 
written for Linux 2.6, but most documents do not say anything about the last 
significant review/update. This let people think that documentation and code 
are always in sync. How this is handled? Just by enforcing people to update 
the documentation when they change, for example, an interface that has been 
documented?

On Friday, July 27, 2018 12:23:30 AM CEST Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Sat,  7 Jul 2018 00:05:17 +0200
> 
> Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it> wrote:
> > This patch includes the kernel-hacking translation in Italian (both
> > hacking.rst and locking.rst).
> > 
> > It adds also the anchors for the english kernel-hacking documents.
> 
> Applied, thanks.  Though I do have to wonder a bit, since these documents
> are ancient and haven't seen a lot of maintenance in recent times...
> 
> jon

-- 
Federico Vaga
http://www.federicovaga.it/