Re: [RFC 2/3 v3]update web addresses in stagging

["Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@gmail.com>]

On 09/25/2010 01:47 PM, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 05:51:56PM -0700, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>> On 09/24/2010 05:34 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 05:08:56PM -0700, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>>>> The below patch, is a simple fix to a broken web address not using a
>>>> period in it's
>>>> name. I'll leave this up to you guys if you want to use it...
>>>>
>>>>   Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> I'll queue it up, thanks.
>>>
>>> Oh, it's "staging", not "stagging" as you have up there in the Subject:
>>> :)
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> greg k-h
>>>
>>
>> shoot... and I actually changed it from staging to stagging thinking
>> that was correct..(duh)..
>>
>> Anyways alright.. I'll exclude this one if the other sets get finalized.
>
> One random suggestion:  Perhaps you should include a date here?  i.e. "URL
> blah blah blah (as of Sept 2010)"
>
> That way, people have some idea how much they can trust that URL without
> having to dig into the kernel history to see when it was last changed.
>
> Matt
>


well.. as it stand right now doing grep -Re "http" in all the 
directories(minus COPYING/MAINTAINERS) gave me a little over 2000
addresses to check(not so bad, only a few days worth of checking(finding 
the broken address is time consuming)).. so I could go back and do this 
for all of them except the webarchive addresses that are broken(maybe 
put a tag on them saying use_webarchive or something).
then there is the question of how much more bloated will the kernel get 
with such a thing(I'm guessing not much, but then again you never know).

Justin P. Mattock