From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from tex.lwn.net ([70.33.254.29]:41490 "EHLO vena.lwn.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751906AbcGSW6J (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jul 2016 18:58:09 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:58:06 -0600 From: Jonathan Corbet To: Markus Heiser Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Linux Media Mailing List , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Jani Nikula Subject: Re: Troubles with kernel-doc and RST files Message-ID: <20160719165806.2ef581dc@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20160717100154.64823d99@recife.lan> <20160717203719.6471fe03@lwn.net> <20160718085420.314119a8@recife.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 12:00:24 +0200 Markus Heiser wrote: > I recommend to consider to switch to the python version of the parser. > I know, that there is a natural shyness about a reimplementation in python > and thats why I offer to support it for a long time period .. it would > be a joy for me ;-) > > If you interested in, I could send a RFC patch for this, if not please > give the reasons why not. We've had this discussion already... The problem is not with "python", it's with "reimplementation". We have enough moving parts in this transition already; tossing in a wholesale replacement of a tool that, for all of its many faults, embodies a couple decades worth of experience just doesn't seem like the right thing to do at this time. I will be happy to entertain the idea of a new kernel-doc in the future; trust me, I have no emotional attachment to the current one. But please let's solidify what we have now first. There's enough stuff to deal with as it is. Thanks, jon