On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 09:28:58PM -0400, Christopher Li wrote: > I want to use some mark down format for the document > of sparse. > > There is two choice here: > > rST (reStructuredText) > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReStructuredText > > MD (Mark Down) > https://github.com/adam-p/markdown-here/wiki/Markdown-Cheatsheet > > Does any one care which format to use? > > So far I am weak leaning towards MD but I can be convenience > otherwise. Mostly because MD render on github is very nicely. > I already use MD on other projects. > > Here is my run down of Pros and Cons > rST Pros: > > - Linux kernel already using rST for documents like > submiting-patches.rst. I need a file for sparse version of > submitting-patches. > > - might be more friendly to code syntax. But I am not going to use > those really deep extensions any way. > > rST Cons (for me): > - I don't know rST at all. I need to learn it. > - github does not recognized rST naturally. > > > MarkDown Pros: > - More friendly to web. > - Github etc can render .md properly on display. > - I already know how the syntax. No need to learn. > > MarkdDown Cons: > - Kernel is using rST. I need to convert the format if I borrow > some file from the Linux Kernel. > > Feed back? I personally find the Markdown format *much* closer to normal text formatting in email, and I'd highly recommend using it. I'm not sure why the kernel picked reStructuredText, but I don't think there's likely to be a huge amount of cross-pollination between the two in terms of documentation. In particular, you're unlikely to want to borrow files from the kernel given the different license. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
