Re: [PATCH] docs: Make CodingStyle and SubmittingPatches symlinks

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

(adding Greg KH as I doubt he ever saw the original)

On Tue, 2017-02-14 at 14:34 -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 08:34:58 -0200
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com> wrote:
> 
> > The main difference between a "pointer file" and a symlink is that the
> > first indicates a temporary solution, teaching people that the
> > file got renamed and were it is located now. As such, we can remove
> > those "pointer files" on some future Kernel releases without much concern.
> > 
> > A symlink indicates a more permanent situation, as people will keep
> > using the symlinked files as before. That means that any attempt to
> > remove those in the future will generate concerns.
> > 
> > So, I'm in favor of using the "pointer files" instead, as it
> > gives us an easier way to get rid of them when we find convenient.
> 
> So you've all long since forgotten this discussion, I'm sure, but I've
> been pondering it on and off for quite a while.
> 
> The movement of some of the more well-known documents has been a concern
> of mine from the beginning; that is why I delayed those changes for
> a cycle and raised the issue at a number of conferences, culminating in
> the kernel summit in November.  I got a strong sense of consensus that we
> should go ahead and move the files.
> 
> As Mauro says, symlinks are forever; they say we'll never really succeed
> in rationalizing the structure of Documentation/.  But we don't nail down
> the location of any other files in the kernel source tree in this manner,
> and my own feeling is that we shouldn't do that here either.  The kernel
> source tree is not an API.  So my thinking at the moment is that we should
> retain the current "pointer files" in the vague hope that, someday, we
> won't need them anymore.

I'm still of the opposite opinion.