Re: [PATCH]Update-broken-web-addresses-in-the-kernel

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

On 09/21/2010 10:44 PM, Finn Thain wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>
>> On 09/21/2010 07:41 PM, Finn Thain wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 09/20/2010 10:17 PM, Finn Thain wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I would say that if a URL is in the web archive, then no patch is
>>>>> needed.
> [snip]
>>> Applying your reasoning that "people are still wanting to read the old
>>> info", a policy to accept patches like:
>>> - http://foo/bar
>>> + http://web.archive.org/web/*/foo/bar
>>> would imply another continual stream of patches when the domain foo
>>> changes hands. Then you have to pach,
>>> - http://web.archive.org/web/*/foo/bar
>>> + http://web.archive.org/web/YYYYMMDDHHMMSS/foo/bar
>>>
>>> Then the problem becomes what is the correct YYYYMMMDDHHMMSS? The one
>>> closest to the datestamp of submission of the patch? Or the datestamp
>>> from the email that submitted the patch? When these questions arise,
>>> it becomes a new burden on maintainers to determine the right version
>>> of the web page in the archive, and whether or not the latest version
>>> is the best one.
>>>
>>
>> just was looking for apmv1.1.doc my search results are not so
>> good(everything is pointing to v2) but it is tricky to decipher..
>>
>>> So both of these (arguably) continuous streams of patches would become
>>> a burden on maintainers and offer little or no benefit to those
>>> reading the source code.
>>>
>>
>> true.. I see it as accommodating.. but then again maybe a museum if you
>> want to search about the first commador64 as opposed to ps3/xbox(I know
>> bad analogy, but only thing I can think of).
>>
>>> The benefit to end users is also dubious, because you're chasing web
>>> pages that were abandoned, implying low value in the first place.
>>>
>>
>> but at the time that was hot off the press info..(which I need to
>> respect, and should be taken care of).
>
> I think the best solution might be to somehow ensure that, in future, new
> links inserted into the kernel are qualified with a date stamp. E.g.
>
>    For technical information about the SUX-5000, please see:
>    <http://foo/bar>  (retrieved 1990/6/22)
>
> In this way, rather than adding loads of "www.webarchive.org" boilerplate
> without solving the problem, we can push the extra workload back to the
> patch authors instead of letting it fall to maintainers.
>
> If you know perl, you might be able to achieve this with
> scripts/checkpatch.pl.
>
> Finn
>

well, right now im just trying to get through all of these(in the most 
organized way..) but that does sound like a good idea, unfortunately
my perl skills are as far as knowing it's a binary that knows to take a 
bunch of commands(as for building anything to use it not yet..(maybe in 
the future)).

Justin P. Mattock