[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190423123057.GA91497@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 14:30:57 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 38/79] docs: scheduler: convert docs to ReST and
rename to *.rst
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 12:32:02PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > The .rst files still read like text files, right?
>
> Like a harder to read text file for no gains.
I just looked through a couple of RST files in Documentation/, and they
look like perfectly readable text files to me.
Some of the formatting details are arguably 'special' and can be broken
via "text edits" without being aware of the RST markup relevance - but I
don't think it's a problem for RST-unaware developers to break that
markup, the Documentation/ folks have been rather generous and flexible
in fixing those up, in addition to fixing all the typos as well.
So I'd be cautiously in favor of the RST conversion, assuming I don't get
yelled at if I break the markup. ;-)
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists