Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Sep 2010 23:08:44 -0700 | From | "Justin P. Mattock" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH]Update-broken-web-addresses-in-the-kernel |
| |
On 09/21/2010 10:44 PM, Finn Thain wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Justin P. Mattock wrote: > >> On 09/21/2010 07:41 PM, Finn Thain wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Justin P. Mattock wrote: >>> >>>> On 09/20/2010 10:17 PM, Finn Thain wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I would say that if a URL is in the web archive, then no patch is >>>>> needed. > [snip] >>> Applying your reasoning that "people are still wanting to read the old >>> info", a policy to accept patches like: >>> - http://foo/bar >>> + http://web.archive.org/web/*/foo/bar >>> would imply another continual stream of patches when the domain foo >>> changes hands. Then you have to pach, >>> - http://web.archive.org/web/*/foo/bar >>> + http://web.archive.org/web/YYYYMMDDHHMMSS/foo/bar >>> >>> Then the problem becomes what is the correct YYYYMMMDDHHMMSS? The one >>> closest to the datestamp of submission of the patch? Or the datestamp >>> from the email that submitted the patch? When these questions arise, >>> it becomes a new burden on maintainers to determine the right version >>> of the web page in the archive, and whether or not the latest version >>> is the best one. >>> >> >> just was looking for apmv1.1.doc my search results are not so >> good(everything is pointing to v2) but it is tricky to decipher.. >> >>> So both of these (arguably) continuous streams of patches would become >>> a burden on maintainers and offer little or no benefit to those >>> reading the source code. >>> >> >> true.. I see it as accommodating.. but then again maybe a museum if you >> want to search about the first commador64 as opposed to ps3/xbox(I know >> bad analogy, but only thing I can think of). >> >>> The benefit to end users is also dubious, because you're chasing web >>> pages that were abandoned, implying low value in the first place. >>> >> >> but at the time that was hot off the press info..(which I need to >> respect, and should be taken care of). > > I think the best solution might be to somehow ensure that, in future, new > links inserted into the kernel are qualified with a date stamp. E.g. > > For technical information about the SUX-5000, please see: > <http://foo/bar> (retrieved 1990/6/22) > > In this way, rather than adding loads of "www.webarchive.org" boilerplate > without solving the problem, we can push the extra workload back to the > patch authors instead of letting it fall to maintainers. > > If you know perl, you might be able to achieve this with > scripts/checkpatch.pl. > > Finn >
well, right now im just trying to get through all of these(in the most organized way..) but that does sound like a good idea, unfortunately my perl skills are as far as knowing it's a binary that knows to take a bunch of commands(as for building anything to use it not yet..(maybe in the future)).
Justin P. Mattock
| |