From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nish Aravamudan Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:08:33 +0000 Subject: Re: [KJ] [RFC] TODO file cleanups Message-Id: <29495f1d050125100829b9c6f4@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============31470093969193469==" List-Id: References: <20050117231123.GC19162@nd47.coderock.org> In-Reply-To: <20050117231123.GC19162@nd47.coderock.org> To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org --===============31470093969193469== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:11:36 -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > Nish Aravamudan wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:58:27 -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > > > >>Domen Puncer wrote: > >> > >>>>Second stage, that i'm doing now is to put stuff into sections (like it > >>>>is at the beginning of file). > >>>>I'm also thinking about ordering from easiest to hardest. > >>> > >>> > >>>I tried doing this, diff is ugly, lots of reordering, moving and > >>>making items from below shorter. Easiest to hardest ordering is very > >>>rough and subjective. > >> > >>Rough and subjective are expected IMO, but also helpful to newcomers. > >> > >> > >>>I think i added all new suggestions. > >>>Deleted rcpci45.c and module licences entries. > >>> > >>>So... is it better, or should i just continue with previous version? > >>> > >>> > >>> $Id: TODO,v 1.25 2004/12/29 23:03:14 domen Exp $ > >>> -===================- > >>> > >>>-None of the following items are in any order of importance or difficulty. > >>>-Where possible related items have been grouped together. > >>>+Send patches that add/fix items to kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org. > >>>+Please don't add items to end of file. > >>> > >>> > >>>+Where it makes sense, sections are supposed to be ordered by incresing > >>>+difficulty. > >>>+ > >>>+Links are marked with: > >>>+D: description/information about the issue > >>>+E: example patch > >> > >>I like the shortened version (with D: and E:), although I expect that > >>some people would rather see the D: inline instead of having to > >>follow links. Also, it could easily be a little too sparse (or > >>spartan) for people who are new to Linux. > > > > > > To account for this case, could we maintain two TODOs? They wouldn't > > be any different, just that one is less "spartan," as Randy said, than > > the other :) Basically inline the links there for now.... The > > sparse(r) TODO would be official & maintained; more verbose one would > > get updated whenever we got around to it. Link the latter from the > > former at the bottom, perhaps. So that you *have* to go through the > > sparse one :) > > > > I don't know if it's feasible (more work for KJ maintainer, > > admittedly), but might be a good compromise. Looks good otherwise, > > Domen. > > If I were updating the TODO, I wouldn't care for that option. > Choose A xor B. :) You are right, Randy. I am just concerned (like you, I think) that newbies who wish to engage in Janitor work will get scared away by a list that is far more terse than the current one. In the end, though, I think the clean-up is much better in the long run, so go with it, Domen. -Nish --===============31470093969193469== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors --===============31470093969193469==--