Re: [libgpiod][PATCH] doc: fix sphinx config for rtd

[Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 11:29:46PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 05:19:41PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 5:15 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Would we be able to then have a proper RTD website with a version
> > > > selector etc? That would be awesome and it's one of the last big
> > > > missing bits for libgpiod to be more available to beginners.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Going forwards for sure.
> > >
> > > Going backwards is more problematic, particularly if changes to the code
> > > docs are required to get them to render properly.  I've got a few of
> > > those lined up already.  Should be able to work out something to patch
> > > older versions, but haven't put much thought into it at this point.
> > >

And the python build has changed too.

> > > Cheers,
> > > Kent.
> >
> > I guess going forward is enough.
> >
>
> I'm not ruling out supporting older revisions - but it will require
> additional work.  Longer term I would like to see all 2.x and even 1.6.
> But the immediate goal is 2.1 and/or 2.2, depending when it lands.
>

But of course I have to look into this now anyway, as it impacts how the
build is structured...

I was thinking the maintenance branches could have the sphinx doc
generation backported, and the versions exposed on RTD would correspond
to the maintenance branches. Those could be updated and rolled out
piecemeal. So I'm thinking that is quite doable.

Then I recall that the bindings each have their own version, e.g. python
is now at 2.2.0, and rust is 0.2.2, while core is at 2.1.2.
And I'm not even sure what version C++ is at (does that track core??).
How do you want to handle that?  The simplest would be for the RTD version
to correspond to the core/maintenance branch, as I had intended.
The corresponding binding version could be displayed on the page for the
binding.

Would that work for you?

Cheers,
Kent.