Re: [RFC] Structural changes for Documentation directory

[Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>]

Jim Nelson <james4765@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Dave Jones wrote:
>  > On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 06:51:04PM -0400, Jim Nelson wrote:
>  > 
>  >  > True.  "./2.6-docs" would reflect the the intent of having 
>  >  > version-specific information, with the "./Documentation" directory left 
>  >  > for general information and files of historical interest.
>  > 
>  > version numbers in directories are nearly always a bad idea,
>  > as they always tend to look a bit silly when the subsequent
>  > release is made.
>  > 
>  > 		Dave
>  > 
>  > 
> 
>  But it would also give a clue that the docs are out of date.  Perhaps 
>  later in each developement cycle, there could be an effort to check the 
>  documentation, with a 2.8-docs or 3.0-docs being the result, and dumping 
>  the 2.6-docs into the historical reference directory.
> 
>  Or, the old stuff could be dropped with the new stable release.
> 
>  The other possibility is to have a TODO file with a list of out-of-date 
>  files, and have the removal of the file listing in the TODO file be part 
>  of the patch submission.

It all sounds too complex.  ./docs/ is fine.