Re: CFD: linux-wanking@vger.kernel.org (was [PATCH] Standard indentation of arguments)
[Posted June 4, 2008 by jake]
| From: |
| Nick Andrew <nick-AT-nick-andrew.net> |
| To: |
| Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl-AT-gmail.com> |
| Subject: |
| Re: CFD: linux-wanking-AT-vger.kernel.org (was [PATCH] Standard indentation of arguments) |
| Date: |
| Sun, 1 Jun 2008 02:23:13 +1000 |
| Message-ID: |
| <20080531162312.GA5599@tull.net> |
| Cc: |
| Jonathan Corbet <corbet-AT-lwn.net>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov-AT-gmail.com>, rdunlap-AT-xenotime.net,
tytso-AT-mit.edu, hch-AT-infradead.org, viro-AT-zeniv.linux.org.uk,
linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, davem-AT-davemloft.net,
Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
| Archive‑link: | |
Article |
Suggestions ...
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 01:46:28AM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> Ok, here's a first (very) rough draft of a KernelNewbieGuide document.
> It can certainly be expanded a lot and my grammar and spelling is far
> from perfect, but hey, it's a first rough draft :)
[...]
> - Go through the kernel Bugzilla (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/) and see
> if you can fix any of the many bugs filed in it. There's a metric
> butload of bugs filed in there that need attention.
"buttload"
> As far as tools go, all you really need are the tools compile the
> kernel (gcc, make etc) and a text editor to edit the source - vi,
> emacs, joe, almost anything will do fine.
"tools _to_ compile the kernel"
> Developing against anything older than the latest stable kernel is
> likely to be a waste of effort due to the rapid pace of
> development. Once you finish your patch against a several months (or
> even weeks) old kernel, your patch runs a great risk of being obsolete
> or impossible to apply (this greatly depends on the area you work on
> ofcours cince some areas change more rapidly than others, but do try
"of course, since"
> If your patch did not get applied and you recieved an ACK or some
"received"
> criticism about your patch, then your job is easy. If there's a very
> explicit rejection of the patch by the maintainer of the code with a
> good reason, then don't bother sending it again, it probably will
> never be applied. If the patch received improvement suggestions or
> other review comments, then you should create a new version of your
> patch that adresses the feedback you get and then re-submit (it's
> usually a good idea to list what stuff you've adressed when
> re-submitting).
"addressed".
I'd probably make a few grammatical changes too. When you're happy
with the content and your document is in the tree, I'll submit a
patch :-)
Nick.
--
PGP Key ID = 0x418487E7 http://www.nick-andrew.net/
PGP Key fingerprint = B3ED 6894 8E49 1770 C24A 67E3 6266 6EB9 4184 87E7
