From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Randy.Dunlap" Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:11:36 +0000 Subject: Re: [KJ] [RFC] TODO file cleanups Message-Id: <41F67DC8.3080608@osdl.org> List-Id: References: <20050117231123.GC19162@nd47.coderock.org> In-Reply-To: <20050117231123.GC19162@nd47.coderock.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org 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. :) -- ~Randy _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors