[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201024084531.33fc1b75@coco.lan>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 08:45:31 +0200
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Jonathan Neuschäfer <j.neuschaefer@....net>,
"rd.dunlab@...il.com" <rd.dunlab@...il.com>,
Corey Minyard <cminyard@...sta.com>,
Harald Seiler <hws@...x.de>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
Pragat Pandya <pragat.pandya@...il.com>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: driver-api: remove a duplicated index entry
Em Wed, 21 Oct 2020 15:13:44 -0600
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> escreveu:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 11:12:06 +0200
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > The ipmb file was added twice at index.rst. That
> > sounds to be because the same patch was applied twice,
> > via different git trees:
> >
> > commit f6ae22d64433fd8e08654adad7966299da931bb9
> > Author: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>
> > Commit: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
> >
> > docs: ipmb: place it at driver-api and convert to ReST
> >
> > commit ac499fba98c3c65078fd84fa0a62cd6f6d5837ed
> > Author: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>
> > Commit: Corey Minyard <cminyard@...sta.com>
> >
> > docs: ipmb: place it at driver-api and convert to ReST
> >
> > With Sphinx 4.0.0 development tree, a new warning is produced
> > due to that:
> >
> > .../Documentation/driver-api/index.rst:14: WARNING: duplicated entry found in toctree: driver-api/ipmb
> >
> > The fix is trivial: just drop the duplicated line.
> >
> > Fixes: f6ae22d64433 ("docs: ipmb: place it at driver-api and convert to ReST")
> > Fixes: ac499fba98c3 ("docs: ipmb: place it at driver-api and convert to ReST")
> > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
>
> Interesting...I wonder how applying the patch twice could lead to the line
> being inserted in two completely different locations like that? Anyway,
> I've applied this one, hopefully nobody else will do the same :)
Probably this was due to some manual conflict resolution when applying
one of the versions of it ;-)
No big harm, and with newer Sphinx versions, we should be able
to detect similar cases in the future.
Thanks,
Mauro
Powered by blists - more mailing lists