On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> I find it totally unacceptable to require explicitly marking kernel-doc >>>> comments or source files as being reStructuredText. >>>> Note that it's all opt-in already. If you add a .rst file that includes >>>> kernel-doc via the kernel-doc extension, you better make sure the >>>> comments parse as reStructuredText and render nicely. I'm willing to do >>>> much of the job for all the things that I care about. >>> >>> We have a different POV ... I try to build up a documentation project, >>> which could use all given kernel-doc markups without any change, where >>> reST is an "addition". Your approach is to fix kernel-doc comments >>> if they are referred by a kernl-doc directive in a .rst document. >>> There is nothing wrong about your approach, but I try to build >>> a whole source code documentation like the one I started here: >>> http://return42.github.io/sphkerneldoc/linux_src_doc/index.html >> >> That looks nice, but I'll argue it would not be much worse even if you >> assumed it's all rst. > > A superficial look on the HTML output may give the impression. But in > the log you will find tons of errors and warnings. My experience is, > that authors will not consult logs if there are tons of errors from the > beginning, which carries a decrease in quality. IMO not a good starting > point. 0-day builds all docs, and checks for new warnings. Even in today's gpu.tmpl build there's a massive pile of warnings, so yes developers don't look. But 0-day does, and then developers look at the nice mails from 0-day. It mostly works to keep out new fail I think. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
