From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To: "Tomasz Warniełło" <tomasz.warniello@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Tomasz Warniełło" <tomasz.warniello@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] scripts: kernel-doc: Major kernel-doc rework
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 16:45:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8735ki2x62.fsf@meer.lwn.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220205233945.7a4d22d8@fuji.fritz.box>
Tomasz Warniełło <tomasz.warniello@gmail.com> writes:
> This is in fact a release notification of a major kernel-doc script
> refurbishment I have done. My work has reached a stage, which can be
> considered a world sync point and here we are.
>
> I'm not sending all the patches to the Linux mailing list, as I prefer
> to check what you think before I emit about 500 emails.
>
> I've parked the lot for you to inspect here:
> https://salsa.debian.org/guest/kernel-doc
>
> This also helps me report the bug fixes. See the issue tracker:
> https://salsa.debian.org/guest/kernel-doc/-/issues
I've taken a quick look - that's a lot of stuff. Thanks for not sending
it all; you would have gotten some unhappy answers.
Some overall thoughts:
- Work like this needs to be broken up into digestible batches. Let's
start with the POD stuff that I've (finally) commented on; other
stuff can come later.
- The coding style in the new work is very unkernellike; that will make
it harder to get this work merged.
- But let's take a step back and ask: why are we doing all of this work
in the first place? What is the benefit to the kernel community from
all this churn, and a growth of the kernel-doc script by over 2,000
lines (even if an awful lot of them are blank)?
I'm serious about that last question; do we really want to invest that
kind of effort into this nasty old script? Or, if we're going to do
such a thing, should we maybe start with Markus's rewrite into Python
instead? If we're going to thrash the code and make it unrecognizable,
perhaps we should move to a language that is consistent with the rest of
the docs build system and which, I believe, is easier for more kernel
developers to deal with?
I am *not* saying that this work cannot be accepted, and I certainly do
not want to alienate somebody who is actually able to look at kernel-doc
and not have their eyes bleed out. But I am saying that, before
launching into a hundreds-of-patches journey, we should know where we're
going and why we are doing it.
See what I'm getting at?
Thanks,
jon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-16 23:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-05 22:39 [RFC] scripts: kernel-doc: Major kernel-doc rework Tomasz Warniełło
2022-02-15 23:51 ` Jonathan Corbet
2022-02-16 23:45 ` Jonathan Corbet [this message]
2022-02-17 15:32 ` Tomasz Warniełło
2022-02-17 17:04 ` Jonathan Corbet
2022-02-17 17:50 ` Randy Dunlap
2022-02-18 2:29 ` Tomasz Warniełło
2022-02-18 3:07 ` Matthew Wilcox
2022-02-21 12:57 ` Jani Nikula
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8735ki2x62.fsf@meer.lwn.net \
--to=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tomasz.warniello@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.