| 1 |
Alexander Berntsen posted on Mon, 23 May 2016 12:56:06 +0200 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> When submitting v2-patches, please submit them in-reply-to=the message |
| 4 |
> ID of the original thread. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
It isn't mandatory here and many ignore it, but many readers (like me) |
| 7 |
and more importantly reviewers find a short, often one-line description |
| 8 |
of what changed between versions useful as well. A multi-revision patch |
| 9 |
will thus have a mini-changelog of what happened at each revision. While |
| 10 |
not mandatory here, it is considered so on many lists including most linux |
| 11 |
kernel related lists. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> The patch looks OK, but I don't recall us using the "OBSOLETE" phrase in |
| 14 |
> any documentation. Does anybody know any phrase we should be using |
| 15 |
> instead, and why we should be using that phrase instead? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Maybe we should pick a term ("OBSOLETE" is fine by me), and make it |
| 18 |
> "official" for these situations in the future. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
No argument with obsolete here, but as long as the option is still |
| 21 |
allowed (even if ignored) for backward compatibility, isn't "deprecated" |
| 22 |
the usual term? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Then "obsolete" can be reserved for continued listing (for historical |
| 25 |
reasons...) after the option is no longer allowed (whether it directly |
| 26 |
triggers an error or simply isn't processed at all, thus likely |
| 27 |
triggering an indirect error due to incorrect parsing of other options |
| 28 |
and parameters on the command line). |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 32 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 33 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives