Re: [docs] i don't see my Oct 1 patch to add Wic as a term

["Antonin Godard" <antonin.godard@bootlin.com>]

On Tue Nov 10, 2026 at 2:09 PM CET, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2026, Antonin Godard wrote:
>
>> On Tue Nov 10, 2026 at 11:44 AM CET, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> >
>> >   several weeks ago, i submitted a patch to add the "Wic" term to the
>> > ref manual list of terms, and it was signed off:
>> >
>> >   commit 05c97b48227f0e50d008d078b224aa537c06aada
>> >   Author: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>
>> >   Date:   Thu Oct 1 06:51:58 2026 -0400
>> >
>> >     ref-manual: add a terms entry for Wic
>> >
>> >     Add a short entry for Wic to the reference manual in order to later
>> >     refer to it from other places in the docs.
>> >
>> >     Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>
>> >     Signed-off-by: Antonin Godard <antonin.godard@bootlin.com>
>> >
>> > but i just checked and don't see it in the official docs (should be
>> > right after "Upstream")
>> >
>> > https://docs.yoctoproject.org/ref-manual/terms.html#term-Upstream
>> >
>> >   i can see that commit in the master branch. am i missing something?
>>
>> This patch was not backported to Blacksail as I didn't think there was a strong
>> need for a backport here.
>>
>> You can see the term on the dev version here:
>> https://docs.yoctoproject.org/dev/ref-manual/terms.html#term-Wic
>>
>> This will display on the default page when Garburn releases.
>
>   ah, got it, i've been out of touch for a few weeks, trying to get
> back into it.  this brings me to my next question -- the whole point
> of adding that Wic term entry was to allow references to "Wic" from
> elsewhere; for example, here:
>
> https://docs.yoctoproject.org/dev/ref-manual/variables.html#term-IMAGE_BOOT_FILES
>
> where you can see, in the first sentence, an obvious candidate for a
> term link:
>
> "A space-separated list of files installed into the boot partition
> when preparing an image using the Wic tool ..."
>                                   ^^^
>
> but once you do that, is it standard practice to introduce the same
> reference *everywhere* in that same section (where "Wic" occurs a
> couple more times)? or is adding the reference only the first time
> in a single section considered sufficient?

I'm pretty sure this is not followed everywhere, and even I sometimes fail to
do so, but we try to reference every occurrence of a word with its corresponding
term when possible. However I feel it might be a little too much sometimes
(twice in the same sentence, for example).

So, up-to-you, you can replace every occurrence mechanically and we can take a
look, but you can also remove excessive replacements, if you have some time.

Thanks,
Antonin