From ec4863a5bc56100f2e4ce746d0efb34729376bb8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andreas Gruenbacher Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:38:05 +0000 Subject: - Add introductory paper to CVS repository. - Remove obsolete documentation. --- doc/consider-for-docs-3.mail | 56 -------------------------------------------- 1 file changed, 56 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 doc/consider-for-docs-3.mail (limited to 'doc/consider-for-docs-3.mail') diff --git a/doc/consider-for-docs-3.mail b/doc/consider-for-docs-3.mail deleted file mode 100644 index 4672ae2..0000000 --- a/doc/consider-for-docs-3.mail +++ /dev/null @@ -1,56 +0,0 @@ -From: Andreas Gruenbacher -Organization: SuSE Linux AG -To: Andrew Morton -Subject: Patch scripts 0.9 improvements -Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 14:39:16 +0100 - -Hi Andrew, - -I still find your patch management scripts very useful. There are a fewg -small limitations that still keeps me from using them for the SuSEg -kernel at the moment. Particularly I need a way to have sub-directoriesg -in patches/ etc. - -Please find some improvements and ideas in the attached patch. - -Also I think it would be a good idea to keep all (non-temporary)g -information pertaining to a patch in a single file, rather thang -splitting into .patch, .txt, .pc files. I have a format like theg -following in mind. A simple parser for that proposed format is alsog -attached. - - Summary: Test patch - Author: Andreas Gruenbacher - URL: http://www.suse.de/ - - %description - DESCRIPTION - - %files - FILE1 - FILE2 - FILE3 - - %patch - PATCH - -I think that it doesn't make much sense to keep the .pc files (%filesg -section) as part of the patch set; they can easily be regenerated fromg -the .patch files. They are useful while working on a set of patchesg -though. What do you think of always generating them on the fly, insteadg -of using import_patch? Then the patches and series files could beg -checked out from CVS, and patching could start immediately; no cruftg -would assemble in the .pc files. - -Another idea: Maybe all the *~* files could live in their own directoryg -tree, e.g., under pc/? Then the file names would become more simple,g -e.g., from file.x~patch to ps/patch/file.x and file.x~dir_patch tog -dir/patch/file.x, with a smaller chance of clashes. What do you think -of that? - -Cheers, -Andreas. - - -[ Attachments removed ] - -- cgit