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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).