Re: Missing File REPORTING-BUGS In Linux Kernel.

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, 08 May 2017, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> On 05/08/17 05:30, Keith Christian wrote:
>> Is there a link to the discussion for changing to .rst?
>
> I don't recall much discussion.  There may have been some on the
> linux-doc mailing list.

There was "some discussion" that dragged on for the better part of a
year. It spanned more threads than I care to remember. Indeed I wish I
could forget. Perhaps you already did. ;)

These articles provide some background:

https://lwn.net/Articles/671496/
https://lwn.net/Articles/692704/
https://lwn.net/Articles/692705/

> As with many things that are kernel-related, it depends a lot on who
> is doing the work and their choices and decisions.

I seem to recall there were a lot of opinions from people who couldn't
care less about documentation too. ;)

>> There is a convention for keeping essential documentation in a simple
>> format that can be read without additional processing.  Where are we
>> going with this?
>
> .rst files are still readable with an editor or 'more' etc.

Moreover, we're converting all of the DocBook XML documentation over to
rst too, making much more documentation human readable (and writable)
without additional processing.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center