Re: [PATCH v6 18/23] docs: add Rust documentation

Akira Yokosawa
2022-05-09T14:57:48Z

[+To: Jon]

On Mon, 9 May 2022 12:41:28 +0200,
Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> Hi Akira,
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:02 AM Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think you agreed splitting SVG part into its own patch with
>> a proper copying info, etc. Let me see... So, here is the link:
>
> Yes, sorry, will do (in fact, it should have been there in v5 too).
>
> By the way, the Linux SVG logo (used to make the one here) is pending
> in the linux-doc ML.

So you mean the following post:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220207014418.GA28724@kernel.org/

I'm not sure why Jon has not responded.

Jon, was there any issue on this patch?

>
>> I might have missed v5 of this patch series.
>> That might be because v5's 15/20 was not accepted by linux-doc's
>> lore archive (maybe) due to its size despite it had Cc: linux-doc.
>> v6's 18/23 was also rejected.
>
> Yes, a few patches get rejected in several lists. We were told this
> was fine as long as LKML gets them (the cover letter has the lists in
> Cc).
>
>> I have some alternative ideas for table formatting in ReST.
>
> I was following the LLVM one, but it makes sense to use the other ones
> where possible. I can send a patch for that one too.
>
>> So here are a couple of alternative ways to represent the table
>>
>> * ASCII-art format:
>> * Literal block format:
>
> Thanks for taking the time to format the examples, it is useful :)
Glad you like it. ;-)

Thanks, Akira

>
>> As you see, those inline-literal markers of ``xxxx``, which are
>> distracting when the .rst file is read as plain-text, are not
>> necessary in the literal-block approach. And you can directly
>
> I agree, it can be better (it is one reason I find Markdown a bit more
> readable since it uses a single backquote for that instead of two).
>
>> In my opinion, the literal-block approach should be the most
>> reasonable choice here. Of course its your call which one
>> to choose.
>
> Yeah, that sounds reasonable. I will take a look.
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> Cheers,
> Miguel