Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 10 May 2018 18:28:34 -0300
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc:     Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] Fix some doc build warnings/errors and broken
 links
Message-ID: <20180510182834.7b4bd7e3@vento.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20180510142235.221da447@lwn.net>
References: <cover.1525870886.git.mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>
        <20180510142235.221da447@lwn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Em Thu, 10 May 2018 14:22:35 -0600
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> escreveu:

> On Wed,  9 May 2018 10:18:43 -0300
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > Patches 1 to 5 on this series contain the patches that weren't yet
> > applied from the past patch series and touch only at Documentation.
> > There are two changes there:
> >   patch 2: fixed the description and added a c/c to cgroup maintainers;
> >   patch 4: rewritten according with Louis request, droping several hunks.  
> 
> Of these, I've applied 2, 4, and 6.  The networking and crypto folks like
> to apply their own documentation fixes; I assume they'll pick these up.

Hmm... I'm pretty sure I emailed about patch 4. Luis actually came with
a better solution: he partially removed the note, as it is outdated.
Better to revert it as otherwise it will rise conflicts at -next once
merged.

> 
> > Patch 6 rewrites scripts/documentation-file-ref-check on Perl,
> > adding an auto-fix feature.  
> 
> Applied this one.
> 
> > Patches 7 and 8 fix things that would cause troubles for the
> > automatic autocorrection tool.  
> 
> #7 is applied.  #8 doesn't apply, though; I'm not sure which tree you made
> it against?  In any case, I've stopped here for now.

Andrea commented about #8. You already applied an identical patch :-)

> > Patch 9 touches a lot of random places (including MAINTAINERS)
> > that contain broken links and can be auto-fixed. It could be
> > broken into one patch per touched file, but I think that is
> > overkill.   
> 
> Let's keep this one (and the ones that follow) aside.  I'm happy to apply
> them, but I think they are best applied as an end-of-merge-window thing.  I
> envision lots of conflicts, and I already have a pile of those to explain
> to Linus this time around.

Yeah, this patch touches on a lot of stuff. Better to handle it by the
end of a merge window.

I suspect you'll need to re-generate it by running this command again:

	./scripts/documentation-file-ref-check --fix

But you should check the results, as false positives may arise.

If you prefer, I rebased the tree with the pending patches, placing
patch 9 at the end. This way, you'll likely avoid conflicts with
patches 10 and 11.

	https://git.linuxtv.org/mchehab/experimental.git/log/?h=broken-links-v4

Thanks,
Mauro