Em Tue, 23 Apr 2019 10:54:15 -0600 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 15:52:26 +0100 > David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > There've been some changes that I've particularly objected to, such as > > removing contents lists from files and replacing them with markup like: > > > > .. contents:: :local: > > > > This actually impedes use of the file. It should not be necessary to build > > the docs to get that for ordinary use. > > Usability of the text files versus that of the built docs is occasionally > something that has to be traded off. As a general rule, I want the text > files to remain useful on their own. There is a lot of value in the > built docs for a lot of people, but that should not be the only, or even > the primary, form of access > > Tables of contents are certainly a place where that tradeoff makes itself > felt. Doing them by hand ensures that they are always present, but > requires that people editing the docs also maintain the TOCS - something > that experience has shown tends not to happen. That's more of a pain > than a little bit of markup, and people don't do it. An automatically > generated TOC, instead, is always correct and is linkable. > > Few people complain about the biggest impediment to the readability of > text files, though: the use of kerneldoc comments. That splits the > information between the text file and multiple random-seeming locations > among tends of thousands of source files. Sometimes the solution here is > to move all of the documentation into the source, but that tends to > fragment it and make it harder to find; it's certainly not the right > place for many kinds of docs. In general, it's hard to create a coherent > story that way. > > Suggestions / patches on how to improve things for *all* users of the > docs are certainly welcome! > > I am, incidentally, toying with the idea of trying to put together a > documentation microconf at the Linux Plumbers Conference this year. If > anybody out there thinks that's a good idea and would like to > participate, please let me know. If you add a microconf to LPC, I'm in. IMO, we made big advances with documentation, but there's a lot more to be done. Having a microconf to discuss those things may help us to bring new ideas about how to keep improving it. Thanks, Mauro
