| Message ID | 20230505082704.16228-4-bagasdotme@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | dc395x stale reference cleanup | expand |
On Fri, 5 May 2023, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: > The 2.4 driver link returns 404. It's still potentially useful: https://web.archive.org/web/20140129181343/http://www.garloff.de/kurt/linux/dc395/ > As no one runs 2.4 kernel anymore, Would it make a difference if someone does run that? Were you planning to delete the source code for the 2.4 kernel too? > remove the stale reference. > It was always stale inasmuch as it is apparently there to give credit for prior contributions, plus a changelog (see archive.org). Any published link should probably be accompanied by a "retrieved on yyyy-mm-dd" qualification. But no qualification is better than no link at all, IMO. Of course, there is a reason for an edit here. Yet it's not the one you gave. "This is a 2.5 only driver" is simply incorrect. (If it was correct you'd get to delete the whole thing.) This is not a nak as I'm not the maintainer. But this patch just looks like churn with no justification. Perhaps I'm not the only one who can't see it. > Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> > --- > Documentation/scsi/dc395x.rst | 4 ---- > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/scsi/dc395x.rst b/Documentation/scsi/dc395x.rst > index c413b629809bcd..a6320561543650 100644 > --- a/Documentation/scsi/dc395x.rst > +++ b/Documentation/scsi/dc395x.rst > @@ -11,10 +11,6 @@ be safe to use. Testing with hard disks has not been done to any > great degree and caution should be exercised if you want to attempt > to use this driver with hard disks. > > -This is a 2.5 only driver. For a 2.4 driver please see the original > -driver (which this driver started from) at > -http://www.garloff.de/kurt/linux/dc395/ > - > Problems, questions and patches should be submitted to the `Linux SCSI > mailing list <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>`_. > >
Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org> writes: > On Fri, 5 May 2023, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: > >> The 2.4 driver link returns 404. > > It's still potentially useful: > https://web.archive.org/web/20140129181343/http://www.garloff.de/kurt/linux/dc395/ > >> As no one runs 2.4 kernel anymore, > > Would it make a difference if someone does run that? Were you planning to > delete the source code for the 2.4 kernel too? Most of the 2.4 code has indeed been deleted *from current kernels*. It's not clear to me why 2.4 documentation should be immune to that same process. If we keep every 20-year-old reference, our docs will be even cruftier and less useful than they are now. Thanks, jon
On Fri, 5 May 2023, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > Most of the 2.4 code has indeed been deleted *from current kernels*. Is it okay to delete old code from -stable kernels? > It's not clear to me why 2.4 documentation should be immune to that same > process. My message argued for removing 2.5 documentation and retaining the link that gives credit to prior contributions. > If we keep every 20-year-old reference, our docs will be even cruftier > and less useful than they are now. > Since you're obviously being facetious, it's tempting to respond that "churn is good because it reduces the average age of the code". But that kind of exchange gets us nowhere. I'd be curious to see an age histogram of the commentary in the source code in the mainline kernel repository (or any other long-lived project). I wonder if that has ever been measured.
On 05.05.23 15:34, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org> writes: > >> On Fri, 5 May 2023, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: >> Would it make a difference if someone does run that? Were you planning to >> delete the source code for the 2.4 kernel too? > > Most of the 2.4 code has indeed been deleted *from current kernels*. > It's not clear to me why 2.4 documentation should be immune to that same > process. If we keep every 20-year-old reference, our docs will be even > cruftier and less useful than they are now. Hi, the documentation of a kernel should document that kernel. Now, we have a perfectly fine tool named "git" which allows for metadocumentation. May I suggest that you respin the patch and include a link to the old stuff, which somebody has been nice enough to find, in the change log? Regards Oliver
On 5/9/23 15:55, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Hi, > > the documentation of a kernel should document that kernel. > > Now, we have a perfectly fine tool named "git" which allows > for metadocumentation. May I suggest that you respin the patch > and include a link to the old stuff, which somebody has been > nice enough to find, in the change log? > OK, thanks!
diff --git a/Documentation/scsi/dc395x.rst b/Documentation/scsi/dc395x.rst index c413b629809bcd..a6320561543650 100644 --- a/Documentation/scsi/dc395x.rst +++ b/Documentation/scsi/dc395x.rst @@ -11,10 +11,6 @@ be safe to use. Testing with hard disks has not been done to any great degree and caution should be exercised if you want to attempt to use this driver with hard disks. -This is a 2.5 only driver. For a 2.4 driver please see the original -driver (which this driver started from) at -http://www.garloff.de/kurt/linux/dc395/ - Problems, questions and patches should be submitted to the `Linux SCSI mailing list <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>`_.
The 2.4 driver link returns 404. As no one runs 2.4 kernel anymore, remove the stale reference. Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> --- Documentation/scsi/dc395x.rst | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)