lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Pull] Some documentation patches
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> I've noticed that getting documentation patches merged seems to be a
> slower and more uncertain process than it was a while back. So I
> figured I'd try to be one of the cool folks with their own git tree and
> see if that works better. Linus, if you agree, could you please pull:

A lot of the time it's just a matter of the "merge window" for
non-critical patches. OTOH, doc patches could be merged at just about
any time IMO.

> git://git.lwn.net/linux-2.6.git docs
>
> To get the following:
>
> Jonathan Corbet (3):
> Add the seq_file documentation
> Fill out information on patch tags in SubmittingPatches
> Add a comment discouraging use of in_atomic()
>
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 54 ++++++-
> Documentation/filesystems/00-INDEX | 2 +
> Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt | 283 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/hardirq.h | 8 +
> 4 files changed, 344 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt
>
> These changes are (1) an updated version of the seq_file document first
> posted in 2003, (2) the much-reviewed patch tags documentation, and
> (3) a comment warning developers that in_atomic() doesn't mean what they
> think it means. No code changes.
>
> If this works out, and nobody objects, I'll try to run this tree into
> the future as a collection point for documentation patches which don't
> have a more obvious tree to travel through.

Getting doc patches merged can be slow sometimes (slower than needed),
but I'm still having success at it.

--
~Randy


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-28 20:51    [W:0.364 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site