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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no 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 06376C4363D for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:01:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB52320760 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:01:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725939AbgJFOBg (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2020 10:01:36 -0400 Received: from ms.lwn.net ([45.79.88.28]:51866 "EHLO ms.lwn.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725902AbgJFOBg (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2020 10:01:36 -0400 Received: from lwn.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B69EA2B7; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:01:35 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 08:01:34 -0600 From: Jonathan Corbet To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: Linux Doc Mailing List , Changbin Du , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Markus Heiser Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts: kernel-doc: allow passing desired Sphinx C domain dialect Message-ID: <20201006080134.07d94d26@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: <20201006084207.125c88d5@coco.lan> References: <20201005101736.7adf4f46@lwn.net> <20201006084207.125c88d5@coco.lan> Organization: LWN.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 08:42:07 +0200 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > As right now we don't support Sphinx version 3.0[1], we're actually using just > $sphinx_major. So, I'm wonder if it would make sense to also make > optional. Maybe...someday we may need it, knowing how the Sphinx folks approach compatibility, but I guess we can always add it then if so. > The change would be trivial, although the regex will become even more > harder to read ;-) ^(\d+)(\.(\d+)){,2} ? (untested, of course) > [1] not sure how valuable would be adding support for Sphinx 3.0. While > I didn't make any tests, I'm strongly suspecting that, with the approach > we took for backward/forward compatibility, adding support for it > would mean to just do a trivial change at cdomain.py by applying a > patch that Markus did replacing a regex function that doesn't exist > anymore at Sphinx API and emulating C namespace with the logic I > already implemented. 3.0 might just be skippable at this point, methinks. jon