From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Jiri Kosina Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 23:18:45 +0200 Message-ID: <1603867.tzUgCzNmNQ@aspire.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <20170625222057.51b1341d@vento.lan> References: <20170623123936.42dab05f@lwn.net> <20170625222057.51b1341d@vento.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Documentation issues List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sunday, June 25, 2017 10:20:57 PM Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Sun, 25 Jun 2017 22:56:07 +0200 (CEST) > Jiri Kosina escreveu: > > > On Sat, 24 Jun 2017, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > > > > There are pieces of .txt documentation falling into the "well-knows source of > > > > information" category, with many references to them all over the Web. > > > > kernel-parameters.txt is probably the most spectacular example here, but there > > > > are others. > > > > > > > > Let us not move or rename these, please, or at least put symbolic links in > > > > place to point to the new locations or similar, such that the existing WWW > > > > links pointing to the documentation at kernel.org still work going forward. > > > > > > > > And if we have moved or renamed them already, can we possibly make these > > > > links work again somehow? > > > > > > Agreed. We discussed in the past about two alternatives for those > > > "well known" documents: > > > > > > 1) write a small text on the old file pointing to the > > > new location; > > > 2) use symlink. > > > > > > Right now, we're actually mixing (1) and (2). IMHO, we should either > > > do (1) or (2). > > > > Unfortunately option (3) has also been applied to some of the files: > > > > $ ll Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt > > ls: cannot access 'Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt': No such file or directory > > > > I wasn't sure whether this was intentional or not. But if not, I'll > > happily send a patch that introduces a symlink. > > It was not intentional in the sense of "hiding" where it > went. The idea is to keep the number of such references "minimum", > in order to avoid bloating the Documents/ with lots of (1) or (2). > > So, the reason why there's currently no cross reference for it is > just because nobody decided to put it at the list of "well known" > docs that would require a cross-reference of type (1) or (2). Which I'm reading as "please send a patch if you care" frankly. :-) Thanks, Rafael