Re: [PATCH 1/2] Docs: An initial automarkup extension for sphinx

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

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
> I am not at all opposed to a more proper solution that might, in the
> long term, produce more deterministic results.  I can even try to work in
> that direction.  But this is something that can be done now that, IMO,
> doesn't in any way close off a better implementation in the future.  If we
> agree that we should automatically generate references for occurrences of
> "function()", we can change how that is actually done later.
>
> I'll look into this further, but my inclination is to go forward with what
> I have now.  It's simple and easy to understand, and doesn't seem to screw
> up anywhere in the current body of kernel docs as far as I can tell.

Fair enough. It's most important that this doesn't block us from
switching to a different implementation later once someone figures it
out.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center