On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 07:41:39AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Youtube references aren't a great way to explain the value of a patch; > you'll find that maintainers will, in general, lack the time or > inclination to follow them up. The patch should explain itself. I agree that the way this has been presented is awful. > > prompt:: bash $ is clearly readable that this is prompt documentation > > in fact, dropping the "$" in the example logs, one can easily copy paste > > the documentation from rst files as well. > > .. prompt:: is clutter. It also adds a bit of extra cognitive load to > reading that part of the documentation. > > Quick copy-paste of multiple lines of privileged shell commands has > never really been a requirement for the kernel docs; why do we need that > so badly? > > I appreciate attempts to improve our documentation, and hope that you > will continue to do so. I am far from convinced, though, that this > change clears the bar for mainline inclusion. I'd ask that you reconsider. Looking at patch 2, I prefer what is written there. I don't think it adds cognitive load when reading the plain docs. I find the "copy and paste from html" argument not very convincing, but I do like "copy and paste from rst", which this enables. I also have a certain fond memory of how the plan9 people set up 'rc' (their shell) so that ";" was both an empty statement, and the default prompt. So you could copy-paste lines starting with the ; prompt and they'd work. It's a small usabillity improvement, but it is there, and wow is it annoying when you don't have it any more.
