On Wed, 1 May 2019 14:15:15 +1000 "Tobin C. Harding" <me@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Since the conversion set I did did not fundamentally change the content > but just moved it to the source files it seemed like this set was a dead > end. > > FWIW I don't think that a _simple_ conversion for vfs.txt to vfs.rst is > useful if the VFS is to be re-documented. It isn't trivial to do if we > want to make any use of RST features and if we do not want to then why > bother converting it? I think it's worth converting; it's sufficiently better than nothing, IMO, that we don't want to just throw it away. If we bring it up to current formatting standards and make it more accessible, it just might motivate others to help make it better. So if you feel like sending me a current patch set, I'd be happy to apply it. Thanks, jon
