[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9b78f94a-e27d-b463-2fe4-a307d8c008b8@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 16:13:32 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Cc: corbet@....net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] kernel-doc tweaks and cleanup of rST vs. non-rST
backends
On 03/01/2017 10:57, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2017, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> these patches are the result of my experiments with using kernel-doc
>> for QEMU's documentation. Patches 1 and 2 should be relatively
>> straightforward, as they are simple bugfixes. Patches 3 to 5, instead,
>> are making the docbook backend (and the others too) more consistent with
>> the input and output of the rST backend.
>
> I did not test the patches, and for sure I will not attempt reviewing
> perl, but at a high level the changes seem sensible.
>
> Acked-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
Thanks---Perl's not that bad, come on! :)
>> I am not sure what is the state of the kernel-doc non-rST backends;
>> but there are still several books using the docbook workflow, so I'm
>> trying my luck and sending the patches anyway. :)
>
> Obviously reStructuredText is the main output now and has to work, and
> DocBook is still used as you say, but hopefully you sneaked in
> regressions for the other formats so we can gauge if anyone cares! ;)
Couldn't expect any other deprecation plan from a graphics guy!
FWIW I tested building the Sphinx and DocBook books and eyeballed the
output for both of them. I also tested manually the list backend on toy
testcases, and of course it is used by docproc when building DocBook
manuals. I didn't test the other backends.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists