From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josh Triplett Subject: Re: Sparse documentation format, rST vs MD Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 04:57:14 -0700 Message-ID: <20170807115713.zfu4d726kmopfym3@x> References: <20170807045611.aq3ofd57a7mtvdcm@x> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.197]:37493 "EHLO relay5-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753092AbdHGL5V (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2017 07:57:21 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Christopher Li Cc: Linux-Sparse , Luc Van Oostenryck On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:46:25AM -0400, Christopher Li wrote: > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 12:56 AM, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > I personally find the Markdown format *much* closer to normal text > > Same here. But I know I am biased. > > > formatting in email, and I'd highly recommend using it. I'm not sure > > why the kernel picked reStructuredText, but I don't think there's likely > > to be a huge amount of cross-pollination between the two in terms of > > documentation. In particular, you're unlikely to want to borrow files > > from the kernel given the different license. > > Mostly just submitting-patches.rst for the Signed-off-by part. > For the coding style we can just point to the Linux kernel one. > > I think it is fine to have a few *documents* remain GPL in sparse. > It is not link to any source file. It is not a source file at all. > I don't think any one will nick pick the license detail on this. Purely procedural documentation seems fine, sure.