[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87fshjw3cj.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 07:18:04 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
Cc: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: Update version number from 5.x to 6.x in README.rst
Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 12:48:39PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> - applying-patches.rst should just go. I didn't prevail last time I
>> tried to make that point, but I still don't think that we help
>> anybody by dragging 1990's instructions around now.
>>
>
> Hi jon,
>
> If we're about to rm applying-patches.rst, at least we also need to add
> a warning to the doc, saying "This documentation is obsolete and will be
> removed in the future.", while adding the same deprecation message on
> scripts/patch-kernel. The script can still be usable and kept around for
> a cycle. If no users complain, we will go ahead rm-ing.
A document isn't an API, it's not like users need time to somehow
migrate away from it. If people will be affected by the removal of a
document, we probably shouldn't remove it. The situation here is that
nobody is likely to care. *Somebody* is probably still updating their
kernel with patches somewhere, but they know what they are doing by now.
A script is different, of course; removing that might actually affect
people.
jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists