Re: [PATCH 0/5] Bibliography update round 5

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 05:57:23AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Feb 9, 2017, at 1:37, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:54:41PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> >>> From 58a0655ab2b5c555bd19a6d7624a9d4413cf1360 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >> From: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
> >> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 23:34:47 +0900
> >> Subject: [PATCH 0/5] Bibliography update round 5
> >> 
> >> Hi Paul,
> >> 
> >> Here is round 5 of bibliography updates.
> >> Patches 1, 2, and 3 take care of broken urls. Patch 2 contains an
> >> alternative link to a webpage capture.
> >> Patch 4 is cosmetic fix of UCB in author fields
> >> Patch 5 is a different type of update. It adds awareness of "location"
> >> field in "inproceedings" entry. Please see the commit log for details.
> >> I think this is a reasonable change for perfbook.
> > 
> > I applied the first four, and might be convinced to apply the fifth.
> > But first a question -- how many changes would be required to bring
> > my old bib entries in line with current practice?
> 
> No change is required. Because this change has effect
> only on entries with both "address" and "location".
> I thought I explained this somewhere, but missed to do so.
> Can this clarification convince you?

Ah, thank you for the clarification!  And on to the next question...

Does it really make sense for me to have both "address" and "location"
on a given bib entry?  If I am doing something strange (quite likely!),
it is probably better for me to fix my strange bib entries than to modify
the tools.  Especially given the possibility that others might well
harvest bib entries from perfbook.

After all, some of my bib entries were old enough to drink almost a
decade ago.  I guess we can only be thankful that they are unable
to do any driving.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul