From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:21441 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751487AbcCCODW (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2016 09:03:22 -0500 From: Jani Nikula To: Jonathan Corbet , LKML , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Keith Packard , Daniel Vetter Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Hans Verkuil , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Graham Whaley Subject: Re: Kernel docs: muddying the waters a bit In-Reply-To: <20160213145317.247c63c7@lwn.net> References: <20160213145317.247c63c7@lwn.net> Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 16:03:14 +0200 Message-ID: <87y49zr74t.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, 13 Feb 2016, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > So can we discuss? I'm not saying we have to use Sphinx, but, should we > choose not to, we should do so with open eyes and good reasons for the > course we do take. What do you all think? This stalled a bit, but the waters are still muddy... Is the Sphinx/reStructuredText table support adequate for media/v4l documentation? Are the Sphinx output formats adequate in general? Specifically, is the lack of DocBook support, and the flexibility it provides, a blocker? Otherwise, I think Sphinx is promising. Jon, I think we need a roll of dice, err, a well-thought-out decision from the maintainer to go with one or the other, so we can make some real progress. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center