Add and update information at 'Documentation/process/changes.rst'. The
text has outdated kernel version and misses the 'cpio' build
requirement, necessary for the `kernel/gen_kheaders.sh` script called by
the install target.

The PATCH 1/2 fixes the missing cpio requirement, while PATCH 2/2 fixes
the kernel version reference.

Signed-off-by: Bruno Moreira-Guedes <codeagain@codeagain.dev>
---
CHANGE SUMMARY
   version: v1  v2
[PATCH 1/2] *   -
[PATCH 1/2] *   *

CHANGELOG
[PATCH 1/2] Docs: Add cpio requirement to changes.rst
        v2:
                - No changes
[PATCH 2/2] Docs: Replace version by 'current' in changes.rst
        v2:
                - Renamed from 'Docs: Update kernel series in
                changes.rst'
                - Changed approach from the original, replacing 4.x by
                5.x, to using 'current', as suggested by Matthew Wilcox.
---
Bruno Moreira-Guedes (2):
  Docs: Add cpio requirement to changes.rst
  Docs: Replace version by 'current' in changes.rst

 Documentation/process/changes.rst | 8 +++++++-
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--
2.35.3

Bruno Moreira-Guedes <codeagain@codeagain.dev> writes:

> Add and update information at 'Documentation/process/changes.rst'. The
> text has outdated kernel version and misses the 'cpio' build
> requirement, necessary for the `kernel/gen_kheaders.sh` script called by
> the install target.
>
> The PATCH 1/2 fixes the missing cpio requirement, while PATCH 2/2 fixes
> the kernel version reference.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bruno Moreira-Guedes <codeagain@codeagain.dev>

Patches applied, thanks.

jon

On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 03:35:10AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Bruno Moreira-Guedes <codeagain@codeagain.dev> writes:
> >
> > The PATCH 1/2 fixes the missing cpio requirement, while PATCH 2/2 fixes
> > the kernel version reference.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bruno Moreira-Guedes <codeagain@codeagain.dev>
> 
> Patches applied, thanks.
Thanks, Jon! I have also been thinking whether this filename
('changes.rst') is a good description of the file contents. Do you think
renaming it to something like 'requirements.rst' and updating its
references would be a good patch?

Bruno Moreira-Guedes <codeagain@codeagain.dev> writes:

> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 03:35:10AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> Bruno Moreira-Guedes <codeagain@codeagain.dev> writes:
>> >
>> > The PATCH 1/2 fixes the missing cpio requirement, while PATCH 2/2 fixes
>> > the kernel version reference.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Bruno Moreira-Guedes <codeagain@codeagain.dev>
>> 
>> Patches applied, thanks.
> Thanks, Jon! I have also been thinking whether this filename
> ('changes.rst') is a good description of the file contents. Do you think
> renaming it to something like 'requirements.rst' and updating its
> references would be a good patch?

It's best not to rename things unnecessarily, especially relatively
well-known files that a lot of people expect to find in a specific
place.  We've done a lot of renaming over the last few years, but this
is one I might let slide for now.

Thanks,

jon

On 4/21/22 04:34, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> Thanks, Jon! I have also been thinking whether this filename
>> ('changes.rst') is a good description of the file contents. Do you think
>> renaming it to something like 'requirements.rst' and updating its
>> references would be a good patch?
> 
> It's best not to rename things unnecessarily, especially relatively
> well-known files that a lot of people expect to find in a specific
> place.  We've done a lot of renaming over the last few years, but this
> is one I might let slide for now.
> 

Did you mean the rename will be benefical?

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> writes:

> On 4/21/22 04:34, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>>> Thanks, Jon! I have also been thinking whether this filename
>>> ('changes.rst') is a good description of the file contents. Do you think
>>> renaming it to something like 'requirements.rst' and updating its
>>> references would be a good patch?
>> 
>> It's best not to rename things unnecessarily, especially relatively
>> well-known files that a lot of people expect to find in a specific
>> place.  We've done a lot of renaming over the last few years, but this
>> is one I might let slide for now.
>> 
>
> Did you mean the rename will be benefical?

No, I would not do the rename at this time.

jon