From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:41340 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753074AbdBIT0K (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2017 14:26:10 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v19JP3U4112791 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 14:26:06 -0500 Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com (e36.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.154]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 28gu7ks44d-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 14:26:05 -0500 Received: from localhost by e36.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:26:05 -0700 Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 11:26:03 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Bibliography update round 5 Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <3aa61663-43c2-6663-278a-2554ee4d5736@gmail.com> <20170208163747.GO30506@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <78D82D63-A7BA-4F43-B320-679D6EA44FD8@gmail.com> <20170208211009.GT30506@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <52CB7A57-7BDC-42C7-9AD7-5957F5CBC973@gmail.com> <20170208214153.GW30506@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <3421a5dd-ab2f-7f47-538b-6f6e7ccbed50@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <3421a5dd-ab2f-7f47-538b-6f6e7ccbed50@gmail.com> Message-Id: <20170209192603.GH30506@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: perfbook-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Akira Yokosawa Cc: perfbook@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 07:21:06AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > On 2017/02/08 13:41:53 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 06:36:18AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > >> > >> > >> Akira  > >> (from mobile, might be QP encoded) > >> > >>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 6:10, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 05:57:23AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 1:37, Paul E. McKenney 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 > >>>>>> 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. > >> > >> Well, I don't think your usage of "address" field is strange at all. > >> It would be easy to find people who do the same. > >> > >> The fact that genuine alpha style does not recognize "location" entry would support my observation. > > > > Sorry to continue with the questions, but should perfbook be using > > some other bibliography style? The current "alpha" was pretty much an > > arbitrary choice. > > Hmm... > For example, there is a Q&A here: > http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/76566/ > > This answer recommends to use "venue" field for location. > > Another Q&A: > http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/152725/ > > There seems to be no popular consensus how to handle location of conference > in bibliography... > > Thoughts? Yow!!! ;-) I will take your updated patch, adding the above two URLs if they are not already present. Thanx, Paul