Add and update information at 'Documentation/process/changes.rst'. The
text has outdated kernel version and misses the 'cpio' build
requirement, necessary for the `kernel/gen_kheaders.sh` script called by
the install target.
The PATCH 1/2 fixes the missing cpio requirement, while PATCH 2/2 fixes
the kernel version reference.
Signed-off-by: Bruno Moreira-Guedes <[email protected]>
---
CHANGE SUMMARY
version: v1 v2
[PATCH 1/2] * -
[PATCH 1/2] * *
CHANGELOG
[PATCH 1/2] Docs: Add cpio requirement to changes.rst
v2:
- No changes
[PATCH 2/2] Docs: Replace version by 'current' in changes.rst
v2:
- Renamed from 'Docs: Update kernel series in
changes.rst'
- Changed approach from the original, replacing 4.x by
5.x, to using 'current', as suggested by Matthew Wilcox.
---
Bruno Moreira-Guedes (2):
Docs: Add cpio requirement to changes.rst
Docs: Replace version by 'current' in changes.rst
Documentation/process/changes.rst | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--
2.35.3
Bagas Sanjaya <[email protected]> writes:
> On 4/21/22 04:34, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>>> Thanks, Jon! I have also been thinking whether this filename
>>> ('changes.rst') is a good description of the file contents. Do you think
>>> renaming it to something like 'requirements.rst' and updating its
>>> references would be a good patch?
>>
>> It's best not to rename things unnecessarily, especially relatively
>> well-known files that a lot of people expect to find in a specific
>> place. We've done a lot of renaming over the last few years, but this
>> is one I might let slide for now.
>>
>
> Did you mean the rename will be benefical?
No, I would not do the rename at this time.
jon
On 4/21/22 04:34, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> Thanks, Jon! I have also been thinking whether this filename
>> ('changes.rst') is a good description of the file contents. Do you think
>> renaming it to something like 'requirements.rst' and updating its
>> references would be a good patch?
>
> It's best not to rename things unnecessarily, especially relatively
> well-known files that a lot of people expect to find in a specific
> place. We've done a lot of renaming over the last few years, but this
> is one I might let slide for now.
>
Did you mean the rename will be benefical?
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
Bruno Moreira-Guedes <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 03:35:10AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> Bruno Moreira-Guedes <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> > The PATCH 1/2 fixes the missing cpio requirement, while PATCH 2/2 fixes
>> > the kernel version reference.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Bruno Moreira-Guedes <[email protected]>
>>
>> Patches applied, thanks.
> Thanks, Jon! I have also been thinking whether this filename
> ('changes.rst') is a good description of the file contents. Do you think
> renaming it to something like 'requirements.rst' and updating its
> references would be a good patch?
It's best not to rename things unnecessarily, especially relatively
well-known files that a lot of people expect to find in a specific
place. We've done a lot of renaming over the last few years, but this
is one I might let slide for now.
Thanks,
jon