From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D47AB13D531 for ; Mon, 14 Apr 2025 16:27:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744648042; cv=none; b=NwwinJbl1dNPWBUYnDEZjMIWt7bBG9RjCtGZ1OYfm8HqB3+5HrUWkZAM0FJr5ZK4fhQKscd0rrIjlazteeRXS86YtXmVGd1LPURe/rFdh+89gbN6OMqAF3j3olKfKHp7FgNPLKsyGQT2DEVyyjqyi0V3WY54FEOVRldFQC9y9Rc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744648042; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gn9BL5+cLf0GxLK13J+IPORHm01ix+CiRp98VF8xXpo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=rAGhXrLMjCl+P6Sw5qyNkRfGiNIEUSYf11Df5ZqILRo31uTNqnNZe1Nrb6GglmtL7xSf+L9xmC9lJj7qXkWKlYHCZNHsmvP3QVqS+72LB26jUuXKLXg3Qo5IowKSKjE3H9Ueexcce/eWw9QHR8GD+kd/zi4t0NYdtTEERojYlmQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=ao9qKy9K; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="ao9qKy9K" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net E494E41062 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1744648040; bh=S8VQftal0JDr0OZ/UF0hM+IYA3kVZXEv+/6XWF0wVkA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=ao9qKy9KrChAgUHQ2m2s4UEH5RKbznILtonE/46BA6JjupZ34nZJFZj2S6mVJDtlE N4/9FzT8lm29Y74ONffGmvnE+HGZg/CFxTUaKR1c9Emnf6oe/qLN+wlqN7QfB+4UMG OzgRBxJuAC5rDvdbfQWu6M1F/fKRaZauEyuo9h7uAqlA7AamQnSIie+ouRwWcpfB/X nmeUzWZ+ziqOEy2DU7DC8VLPzW6PwrYeQ3evwJ+Q5WIGW4pLQUdKxorrt6V6JPI8Oq Q5Zl1jm8m3ez6VFXMxoucDL918ISObpiCeUtekOixIUjkh4zBemZGIw3tw/2NMCBiZ 72MNVo8dusuyQ== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:2da9::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E494E41062; Mon, 14 Apr 2025 16:27:19 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Jelle van der Waa Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, James Addison , Thorsten Leemhuis Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] docs: Disambiguate a pair of rST labels In-Reply-To: <20250407195120.331103-2-jvanderwaa@redhat.com> References: <20250407195120.331103-1-jvanderwaa@redhat.com> <20250407195120.331103-2-jvanderwaa@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 10:27:19 -0600 Message-ID: <87semaaeu0.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Jelle van der Waa writes: > From: James Addison > > According to the reStructuredText documentation, internal hyperlink > targets[1] are intended to resolve within the current document. > > Sphinx has a bug that causes internal hyperlinks declared with > duplicate names to resolve nondeterministically, producing incorrect > documentation. Sphinx does not yet emit a warning when these > duplicate target names are declared. > > To improve the reproducibility and correctness of the HTML > documentation, disambiguate two labels both previously titled > "submit_improvements". > > [1] - https://docutils.sourceforge.io/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtext.html#hyperlink-targets > > Link: https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/issues/13383 > Signed-off-by: James Addison > --- > Documentation/admin-guide/quickly-build-trimmed-linux.rst | 4 ++-- > .../admin-guide/verify-bugs-and-bisect-regressions.rst | 4 ++-- > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) The patch makes sense, and I've applied it, but ... - When you forward a patch like this, you are really supposed to add your own Signed-off-by tag to it. Given the nature of the patch and the explicit acknowledgment from James, I've concluded I can proceed without it. - The headers of this patch have: From: Jelle van der Waa ...which doesn't help in the generation of a proper reply. Something to look into. Thanks, jon