linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] Rewrite the top-level index.rst

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 29 Sep 2022 09:34:18 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] Rewrite the top-level index.rst

Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> writes:

> The top-level index.rst file is the entry point for the kernel's
> documentation, especially for readers of the HTML output.  It is currently
> a mess containing everything we thought to throw in there.  Firefox says it
> would require 26 pages of paper to print it.  That is not a user-friendly
> introduction.
>
> This series aims to improve our documentation entry point with a focus on
> rewriting index.rst.  The result is, IMO, simpler and more approachable.
> For anybody who wants to see the rendered results without building the
> docs, have a look at:
>
>   https://static.lwn.net/kerneldoc/

So I think I'll go ahead and drop this into docs-next shortly.  Thanks
to everybody who has commented.

This, of course, has the potential to create conflicts with other 6.1
work that touches Documentation/index.rst.  Amazingly, as far as I can
tell, there is only one linux-next commit touching that file - the
addition of the Rust docs.  We'll want to be sure that doesn't get lost
during the merge window.  I'll be sure to include a suitable heads-up in
my pull request.

Thanks,

jon