linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] docs: new text on bisecting which also covers bug validation

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]

Message-ID: <78075db2-4d1f-4b94-8814-24666a8518a2@leemhuis.info>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:28:21 +0100
From: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Petr Tesařík
 <petr@...arici.cz>
Cc: regressions@...ts.linux.dev, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
 Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] docs: new text on bisecting which also covers bug
 validation

On 19.02.24 23:12, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info> writes:
> 
>> On 16.02.24 20:41, Petr Tesařík wrote:
>>> Is this because you want to keep it readable if the target audience
>>> reads the source text of the documentation? Otherwise, the .. include
>>> directive does not make a difference after rendering to HTML. AFAIK.
>>
>> It less that I want that, it's more that I got the impression that both
>> Jonathan and most of the kernel development community wants the source
>> text to be readable; not totally sure, but I think that's the right
>> thing to do, too.
> 
> As a general rule, yes.  To harp on this one more time, I do think we
> could create sections of the manual (a "tutorials" book, say) with a
> different set of priorities.

Partly answered to that elsewhere in the thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/2c5a82e1-31f0-4908-80b7-00b3b0257d59@leemhuis.info/

> In the documentation session at the last kernel summit, I got some
> pretty clear feedback that plain-text readability could be made
> secondary to getting the best rendered output, at least in some cases.

For the record: I didn't feel any constrains while writing and would not
know how to improve the "rendered output", except maybe by adding a
image or two. But even then I'd say that's not worth abandoning
plain-text readability.

> Tutorials seems like a good example of such a case, where we could focus
> on good web output without, as you say, creating potential maintenance
> troubles going forward.

It's just a gut feeling, but to me "split the text into smaller parts so
those can be included in different documents" sounds like a much bigger
maintenance nightmare than "keeping some sections in sync that two or
three files (which most likely will be rarely changed!) use in parallel".

But I fear our docs translators might have a different opinion.

Ciao, Thorsten