From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B53C04AAF for ; Tue, 21 May 2019 15:22:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A205320863 for ; Tue, 21 May 2019 15:22:24 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A205320863 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55467 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hT6at-0002gq-Rg for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 21 May 2019 11:22:23 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:54845) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hT6Xa-0000Wy-CB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 21 May 2019 11:18:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hT6XZ-0003QN-FY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 21 May 2019 11:18:58 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43892) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hT6XZ-0003PB-9A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 21 May 2019 11:18:57 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C63081E15; Tue, 21 May 2019 15:18:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (ovpn-116-28.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.28]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 423A3101E26A; Tue, 21 May 2019 15:18:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id ABD551138648; Tue, 21 May 2019 17:18:36 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Armbruster To: Paolo Bonzini References: <20190520184108.GA10764@habkost.net> <20190521085350.GF25835@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 17:18:36 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Paolo Bonzini's message of "Tue, 21 May 2019 12:55:36 +0200") Message-ID: <87pnobrg37.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Tue, 21 May 2019 15:18:48 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Introducing GSoC project: API Documentation Generation X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Peter Maydell , "Daniel P. =?utf-8?Q?Berrang=C3=A9?=" , Eduardo Habkost , Gabriel Barreto , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Emilio G. Cota" , Stefan Hajnoczi , Cleber Rosa , John Snow Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Paolo Bonzini writes: > On 21/05/19 10:53, Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 wrote: [...] >> QEMU should pick a tool which is well established / widely used & thus >> stands a good chance of being maintained for the long term, as we don't >> want to end up relying on abandonware in 5 years time. The kernel-doc >> project is not widely used, but its main user is significant enough that >> it isn't likely to die through lack of maintainers. > > A couple years ago I didn't have problems modifying kerneldoc for QEMU's > syntax, it was a 10 lines patch. Unfortunately I cannot find it anymore. "QEMU's syntax" --- excuse me while I guffaw. What you (quite charitably) call "syntax", I call a habit of imitating examples. Anyway. What's so special about QEMU that justifies coming up with our own doc syntax? Other than "we made a hash of it, and cleaning it up would be work".