From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 56/79] docs: Documentation/*.txt: rename all ReST files to *.rst Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:26:41 -0300 Message-ID: <20190423172641.612012c8@coco.lan> References: <20190423132100.GB7132@redhat.com> <20190423083135.GA11158@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190423125519.GA7104@redhat.com> <20190423130132.GT4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20704.1556031146@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20190423105415.3a69a0cb@lwn.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190423105415.3a69a0cb@lwn.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: David Howells , Mike Snitzer , Peter Zijlstra , Linux Doc Mailing List , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org Em Tue, 23 Apr 2019 10:54:15 -0600 Jonathan Corbet escreveu: > On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 15:52:26 +0100 > David Howells wrote: > > > There've been some changes that I've particularly objected to, such as > > removing contents lists from files and replacing them with markup like: > > > > .. contents:: :local: > > > > This actually impedes use of the file. It should not be necessary to build > > the docs to get that for ordinary use. > > Usability of the text files versus that of the built docs is occasionally > something that has to be traded off. As a general rule, I want the text > files to remain useful on their own. There is a lot of value in the > built docs for a lot of people, but that should not be the only, or even > the primary, form of access > > Tables of contents are certainly a place where that tradeoff makes itself > felt. Doing them by hand ensures that they are always present, but > requires that people editing the docs also maintain the TOCS - something > that experience has shown tends not to happen. That's more of a pain > than a little bit of markup, and people don't do it. An automatically > generated TOC, instead, is always correct and is linkable. > > Few people complain about the biggest impediment to the readability of > text files, though: the use of kerneldoc comments. That splits the > information between the text file and multiple random-seeming locations > among tends of thousands of source files. Sometimes the solution here is > to move all of the documentation into the source, but that tends to > fragment it and make it harder to find; it's certainly not the right > place for many kinds of docs. In general, it's hard to create a coherent > story that way. > > Suggestions / patches on how to improve things for *all* users of the > docs are certainly welcome! > > I am, incidentally, toying with the idea of trying to put together a > documentation microconf at the Linux Plumbers Conference this year. If > anybody out there thinks that's a good idea and would like to > participate, please let me know. If you add a microconf to LPC, I'm in. IMO, we made big advances with documentation, but there's a lot more to be done. Having a microconf to discuss those things may help us to bring new ideas about how to keep improving it. Thanks, Mauro From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:34238 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726088AbfDWU0r (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Apr 2019 16:26:47 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:26:41 -0300 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 56/79] docs: Documentation/*.txt: rename all ReST files to *.rst Message-ID: <20190423172641.612012c8@coco.lan> In-Reply-To: <20190423105415.3a69a0cb@lwn.net> References: <20190423132100.GB7132@redhat.com> <20190423083135.GA11158@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190423125519.GA7104@redhat.com> <20190423130132.GT4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20704.1556031146@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20190423105415.3a69a0cb@lwn.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: David Howells , Mike Snitzer , Peter Zijlstra , Linux Doc Mailing List , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20190423202641.Oxued7jp4GwOU-FCyUdLNDWQ2XVmzAQW30Vz11zOFyE@z> Em Tue, 23 Apr 2019 10:54:15 -0600 Jonathan Corbet escreveu: > On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 15:52:26 +0100 > David Howells wrote: > > > There've been some changes that I've particularly objected to, such as > > removing contents lists from files and replacing them with markup like: > > > > .. contents:: :local: > > > > This actually impedes use of the file. It should not be necessary to build > > the docs to get that for ordinary use. > > Usability of the text files versus that of the built docs is occasionally > something that has to be traded off. As a general rule, I want the text > files to remain useful on their own. There is a lot of value in the > built docs for a lot of people, but that should not be the only, or even > the primary, form of access > > Tables of contents are certainly a place where that tradeoff makes itself > felt. Doing them by hand ensures that they are always present, but > requires that people editing the docs also maintain the TOCS - something > that experience has shown tends not to happen. That's more of a pain > than a little bit of markup, and people don't do it. An automatically > generated TOC, instead, is always correct and is linkable. > > Few people complain about the biggest impediment to the readability of > text files, though: the use of kerneldoc comments. That splits the > information between the text file and multiple random-seeming locations > among tends of thousands of source files. Sometimes the solution here is > to move all of the documentation into the source, but that tends to > fragment it and make it harder to find; it's certainly not the right > place for many kinds of docs. In general, it's hard to create a coherent > story that way. > > Suggestions / patches on how to improve things for *all* users of the > docs are certainly welcome! > > I am, incidentally, toying with the idea of trying to put together a > documentation microconf at the Linux Plumbers Conference this year. If > anybody out there thinks that's a good idea and would like to > participate, please let me know. If you add a microconf to LPC, I'm in. IMO, we made big advances with documentation, but there's a lot more to be done. Having a microconf to discuss those things may help us to bring new ideas about how to keep improving it. Thanks, Mauro