On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 02:17:52PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:23:14AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > We already had a super-short blurb, but worth extending it I think: > > We're still pretty far away from anything like a consensus, but > > there's clearly a lot of people who prefer an as-light as possible > > approach to converting existing .txt files to .rst. Make sure this is > > properly taken into account and clear. > > > > Motivated by discussions with Peter and Christoph and others. > > > > v2: > > - Mention that existing headings should be kept when converting > > existing .txt files (Mauro). > > - Explain that we prefer :: for quoting code, it's easier on the > > eyes (Mauro). > > - Explain that blindly converting outdated docs is harmful. Motived > > by comments Peter did in our discussion. > > > > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx> > > Since this was motivated by a discussion you've (re)started, does this > sufficiently address your concerns for conversion from plain text .txt to > plain text .rst of existing documents? Anything you'd want to see changed? Seems OK to me, but there's already a bunch of bike-shedding in this thread. -- 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
