On Tue, Apr 23 2019 at 9:01am -0400,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 08:55:19AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23 2019 at 4:31am -0400,
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 10:27:45AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > >
> > > > .../{atomic_bitops.txt => atomic_bitops.rst} | 2 +
> > >
> > > What's happend to atomic_t.txt, also NAK, I still occationally touch
> > > these files.
> >
> > Seems Mauro's point is in the future we need to touch these .rst files
> > in terms of ReST compatible changes.
> >
> > I'm dreading DM documentation changes in the future.. despite Mauro and
> > Jon Corbet informing me that ReST is simple, etc.
>
> Well, it _can_ be simple, I've seen examples of rst that were not far
> from generated HTML contents. And I must give Jon credit for not
> accepting that atrocious crap.
>
> But yes, I have 0 motivation to learn or abide by rst. It simply doesn't
> give me anything in return. There is no upside, only worse text files :/
Right, but these changes aren't meant for our benefit. They are for
users who get cleaner web accessible Linux kernel docs. Seems the
decision has been made that the users' benefit, and broader
modernization of Linux docs, outweighs the inconvenience for engineers
who maintain the content of said documentation.
This kind of thing happens a lot these days: pile on engineers, they can
take it :/
