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 E2BDA26A0E0; Tue, 1 Jul 2025 19:11:26 +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=1751397088; cv=none; b=oyFcnSgB7WV+AR5ipZkQi1WDWO33EsqXAeDnYm0TgteP25BxStmzs6MCLnO4j3SPaKlBrdUKiVWe9tcJOAvtnQn4u4VX4lgSJ8Zxd8Qf0n7BDnhAT9Vw2TNUjsLW+mEB9PFimSUri5J4CVYKBXthDixqwXEnlKng8nHfYuTfqrg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751397088; c=relaxed/simple; bh=z4f+eQJG65IF7q83wr7qPgXhTWfnXVrZOVU35IJNU9s=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Q9FTDsgmXCEmdfr1Kk6HEh1EQD4XPaVABvHI83P++7HqcWswtKXOHEk9MV3uZD6Gyi3Zm2dZ4Xn7d0ZmV9YrVCV7D8VDLYitHjB0WXHrYvOzzwXuBpS/omB/zb22agTSjvayoMQfdevSUyLvIReRsMeC2Bw3q2eycoOp4KdGIEE= 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=jTir4Ovy; 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="jTir4Ovy" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 04AFF406FC DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1751397086; bh=2BeC9ePAMZTy0IbNm56dxbKdnRGE6FcrpsbWIQptkVE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=jTir4OvyjsfDadhSD6P98fYu6lq7wOw56wodpA0Zjv1GwAFMmh1hPAOeRNCW6JbfI UPgzwMJ6uNRWYFy1KxImyw/Xz4S28LH6cB7YRY+YkAvX/bZ62BoseuEeqOdE0zBogg 9UnZEnuro/h4/qe5eDM9N9hcRdoiUrE5rC1eyx7TFCdlela6bWWJ+N+TzqJFkImuxc E2+sYXlhsnGZinv3xaiE7diwDuWJ7TAwf/hmAkOqHEcz5IIZV0oO0uy3Mb3bkMGLgq 6wmkqKASqKUBFc2NNHW1wu+DoiBTf5rI/yPDuE5EJnRVxtdaOVL2CmpUYWkM0we5kL gbQNgV8BdjjLw== 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 04AFF406FC; Tue, 1 Jul 2025 19:11:25 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Bagas Sanjaya , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Documentation , Linux ext4 Cc: Theodore Ts'o , Andreas Dilger , "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" , "Darrick J. Wong" , Bagas Sanjaya Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] ext4 docs toctree reorganization In-Reply-To: <20250620105643.25141-2-bagasdotme@gmail.com> References: <20250620105643.25141-2-bagasdotme@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2025 13:11:25 -0600 Message-ID: <87y0t7rajm.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Bagas Sanjaya writes: > Hi Jon, hi Ted, > > While discussing on my previous ext4 docs reorganization attempt > by merging contents [1], Jon suggested that considering current docs > file structure, a proper toctree would be ideal [2]. So, here's > the patchset that does exactly that. > > Actual conversion to toctree structure is in [1/5], while the rest > is cleanups to make the resulting toctree nicer. > > This patchset is based on docs-next tree. So to me this seems like an improvement. I'm happy to take it, though would prefer an ack from ext4land if possible. Thanks, jon