Re: [RFC] Structural changes for Documentation directory

[Jim Nelson]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jim Nelson <james4765@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I propose changing the structure of the Documentation directory to 
> > reflect the structure of the kernel sources itself.
>
>
> That sounds like a bit of overdesign, really.  Take it one step at a time.
>
> Sure, if you're really prepared to do a large-scale overhaul then the first
> step is to create a new top-level directory, say
> "./non-crappy-Documentation" and then move files over into there as they
> are fixed up.  That way we have a good handle on what is done and what
> remains.  You can then make decisions about the directory structure
> on an incremental basis as you become more familiar with the problem.

True.  "./2.6-docs" would reflect the the intent of having 
version-specific information, with the "./Documentation" directory left 
for general information and files of historical interest.

> > Perhaps it would be best to put the new tree in place and have the 
> > individual maintainers relocate their documentation to the new 
> > structure?
>
>
> Maintainers studiously ignore the Documentation directory.  If someone
> really wishes to get in there and fix it all up, that person gets to decide
> what goes where and that person gets to harrass various other maintainers
> when assistance is needed.

Well, it is necessary.  Probably the best job for a polite Southern boy 
like me :D

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/