On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 08:42:07 +0200
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> As right now we don't support Sphinx version 3.0[1], we're actually using just
> $sphinx_major. So, I'm wonder if it would make sense to also make <minor>
> optional.
Maybe...someday we may need it, knowing how the Sphinx folks approach
compatibility, but I guess we can always add it then if so.
> The change would be trivial, although the regex will become even more
> harder to read ;-)
^(\d+)(\.(\d+)){,2}
? (untested, of course)
> [1] not sure how valuable would be adding support for Sphinx 3.0. While
> I didn't make any tests, I'm strongly suspecting that, with the approach
> we took for backward/forward compatibility, adding support for it
> would mean to just do a trivial change at cdomain.py by applying a
> patch that Markus did replacing a regex function that doesn't exist
> anymore at Sphinx API and emulating C namespace with the logic I
> already implemented.
3.0 might just be skippable at this point, methinks.
jon
