From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Tobin C. Harding" Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next v2 3/3] docs: Split filter.txt into separate documents. Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 09:19:52 +1000 Message-ID: <20180807231951.GD11191@eros> References: <20180802223100.26236-1-me@tobin.cc> <20180802223100.26236-4-me@tobin.cc> <20180803070818.3d3e52e4@lwn.net> <20180807024844.GW3088@eros> <20180807071405.58d38277@lwn.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Daniel Borkmann , Alexei Starovoitov , "David S. Miller" , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Jonathan Corbet Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180807071405.58d38277@lwn.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 07:14:05AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 12:48:44 +1000 > "Tobin C. Harding" wrote: > > > How about these steps: > > > > 1. start with foo.txt > > 2. do typo and grammar fixes (any number of patches). > > 3. rename to foo.rst, do whitespace changes, code snippet > > indentation, heading adornments, update references to this file. > > (single patch). > > 4. Fix up references in the file text to use RST (i.e :ref: blah) > > 5. Fix up RST markers (backticks etc). (any number of patches) > > That can certainly work; just don't call it foo.rst until it actually is a > valid RST file. > > And, of course, go easy with the later steps and try to avoid the > temptation to mark up everything; we really want to preserve the > readability of the plain-text files. Yeah I get over zealous sometimes, I'll keep it in mind. What is the current view on references embedded in the text versus a local label with the full reference at the bottom of the file. I've seen both and do not know which is _more_ readable? 1. some random text referencing :ref:`Documentation/path/to/file.rst