[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aFTUf2IZ72d9BODs@archie.me>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 10:24:47 +0700
From: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Documentation <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
"Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Slurp (squash) ext4 subdocs
On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 01:56:48PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com> writes:
>
> > Let's slurp (squash) the subdocs instead. This will make the master docs
> > larger of course (although not as big as KVM API docs), but one can use
> > cross-reference labels without hitting aforementioned warning bug. Also,
> > docs directory structure is tidier with only 4 files (master docs and
> > about.rst). As a bonus, also reduce toctree depth as to not spill the
> > whole hierarchy.
>
> "slurp" is not exactly a technical term that will make sense to readers
> of the changelogs.
>
> But, more importantly... Might it be that the current file structure
> reflects the way the authors wanted to manage the docs? It seems to me
> that just organizing the existing files into a proper toctree would be
> rather less churny and yield useful results, no?
>
Agreed. The toctree approach was indeed my first thought ([1]).
Thanks.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/aEpAD2jcemzvoJlQ@archie.me/
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists