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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4665DC43334 for ; Sat, 11 Jun 2022 03:16:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1347826AbiFKDQI (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:16:08 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36622 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236391AbiFKDQH (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:16:07 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x62e.google.com (mail-pl1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 794BE143868; Fri, 10 Jun 2022 20:16:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id f8so748790plo.9; Fri, 10 Jun 2022 20:16:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:from:subject:to:cc :references:content-language:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=izhA0dul3NBXKk1k4ps+Tgt4s/S/pmcFYXYqBbcTa8Y=; b=h1rQGyQOYzmuaURtLY9r01a9R7uH7Sm1eSaYrtz8lwHbfMuTqy2Xcamy0ccgFe72uO HuleMtIeDg1UgbI1VfEBnIFviqdIFj27znO486PVdrdD1scDZSIv4FLGSDB96B5PMET/ /0ASRCN/d+trnZ+q4/J6Vek0Yken06o+YhabaiUgDRFYnx+omKEicTnby8/0yNK1CDf1 rXYRRVCvQEWnVyOENnUHhZnTeJsl7etrZLsEHNfZimVVMeSCFWaVTmwnv1zyZq9KNSYu hpbAxaELQ3YuJFmxXBepaKB69PSogbq0O8JtmAUmwzI89hEmYOTbbWXd8vHbVP1kDLeU aV4g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:from :subject:to:cc:references:content-language:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=izhA0dul3NBXKk1k4ps+Tgt4s/S/pmcFYXYqBbcTa8Y=; b=lbFwumuddPYHcCIygnbXYB03d9lvjHukskcgK9CmYqjoTgVV2iK4ZTD9ObUuss/6jS mIKab3YwLngD7c23ibrWRA8kMgziXwOud3k0WRD3+9XNwCvhk/U3MyPUtK9c5ORKqTYP HWSRv3G9iX3qf1u6HfOk+qXoDgfX5pnlABDUherMlFfYiu+lrhQ1dJMHoQAMeI/6TVDw Ans0hY93dxOMSDQRWr5Aa2WJiYMrhRiYNpdsRchyqk2y37zlhiBbMeZGDygcQbZ3qh44 VHCfJl69k2cCSuazmGTLEcmQO75jdjviR2i3rC9t5VTxP08eH4O9f3jIaP5E8cN7fyPp EG0Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533DjaWb9yTfeC9TpIwIn6Sg65fhFmlBApTsNN6UgWkIyUYbVGd8 sKJuRpW9rZvES8MkWRjPVnK2udA315c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxjy5tTC7pUgPVJWvk0xO+KTI27KyHE1GQKHl65g3UJL1qZqfy+hsE0miHdA0LSHurL86xQIA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b28c:b0:168:9928:db1b with SMTP id u12-20020a170902b28c00b001689928db1bmr16106620plr.55.1654917364989; Fri, 10 Jun 2022 20:16:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.11.5] (KD106167171201.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp. [106.167.171.201]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h188-20020a62dec5000000b0051bb61c0eacsm329768pfg.20.2022.06.10.20.16.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Jun 2022 20:16:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 12:15:54 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1 From: Akira Yokosawa Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] docs/doc-guide: Update guidelines for title adornments To: Miguel Ojeda , Jani Nikula Cc: Jonathan Corbet , Linux Doc Mailing List , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , "Maciej W. Rozycki" , Miguel Ojeda , linux-kernel References: <732154bc-aa35-2326-2b64-87b6c4dd02e7@gmail.com> <871qvw2898.fsf@intel.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 18:08:43 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 11:11 AM Jani Nikula > wrote: Thank Jani and Miguel for chiming in! As this is a RFC patch, I'm glad to have nice comments from both of you. >> >> When I wrote the original guidelines, it was my subjective decision to >> steer towards using the same title adornment styles and ordering across >> the kernel documentation. I intentionally left out all the >> reStructuredText details about this, because the definitive >> documentation is the reStructuredText documentation we can refer to. >> >> While the "Nth level title" is a more precise description, I'm not sure >> it's actually helpful without describing how these levels should map to >> kernel documentation structure. (Not saying the original did that >> either, but then there wasn't much structure to speak of.) I agree that we need to cover in doc-guide the way the kernel documentation is organized and managed. Total lack of such documentation is kind of surprising to me. > > To give a bit of context: this patch followed from a question I asked > to Jonathan and Akira privately. Currently it is hard to tell the > "nesting level", and even worse, existing files are not consistent and > checking is not automated. Therefore, an easy way to handle this is to > request to follow the same pattern regardless of nesting across the > tree. > >> Improving the documentation on documentation is great, but I think it's >> a bad sign when length of the notes and warnings on something far exceed >> the length of the thing being documented. The bulk of the text should be >> helpful enough for people to DTRT, while leaving out exhaustive >> descriptions of all the details that should just be references to >> reStructuredText documentation. So, I was not aware of such a hidden rule on what should _not_ be in doc-guide. :-) In my opinion, RST documentation is not easy to follow especially for new contributors, and putting some useful tips somewhere in doc-guide would improve situation. I agree with you that those notes and warning don't belong to guidelines. Maybe add a section collecting RST tips and tricks mainly consisting of pointers to RST and docutils documentation. > > Perhaps we can move the rationale to the commit message, and keep only > the current rules in the document. What about something like: > > """ > Please stick to this relative order of adornments within each file > (i.e. regardless of nesting level across the kernel tree): > > 1. ``=`` with overline. > 2. ``=``. > 3. ``-``. > 4. ``~``. > > For instance:: > > ===== > First > ===== > > Second > ====== > > Third > ----- > > Fourth > ~~~~~~ > """ I'm more inclined to keep "level"s in the example. Without them, a new contributor might be confused to use those adornments exactly in that order, for example: ============== Document title ============== Chapter A ========= Section A.1 ----------- Section A.2 ~~~~~~~~~~~ Section A.3 ??????????? Unlikely, but possible... Anyway, I'll post a v2 for your further comments. Might take a while. Thanks, Akira > > Cheers, > Miguel