[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200421165317.277f52ee@lwn.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 16:53:17 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/29] docs: filesystems: convert configfs.txt to
ReST
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 19:23:37 +0200
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:02:23AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 06:55:34PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > NAK, this makes the document significantly harder to read.
> >
> > Really? It reads more easily to me in the new format. Enclosing
> > section headers in [] is really weird.
>
> It wasn't entirely uncommon, but that's not really the point. The
> Problem is all the weird ".." or "::" annotations that really kill
> the flow, or things like "|copy|" that have no reason to exist.
This sounds sort of like "my markup is good, yours is bad", honestly. If
somebody were trying to add bracketed headings to a new document, I
suspect we'd get similar complaints.
The markup can certainly be toned down. If you don't like |copy|, it can
just as easily remain "(c)" or become ©, or just go away entirely. That
would get rid of the ".. include:: <isonum.txt>" line too. I would
happily make a rule that we don't bother with markup like |copy|
anywhere in the kernel docs.
The SPDX line is supposed to exist in all files, of course.
If Mauro does that, can you live with "::" to mark a literal block? It
doesn't seem like a whole lot of noise...?
Thanks,
jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists