On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 02:44:01AM +0100, Csaba Henk wrote: > On 23-01-12 09:10:27, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 09:15:57AM +0100, Csaba Henk wrote: > > > --- > > > .gitignore | 1 + > > > admin/Makefile | 13 +++++++++++-- > > > admin/XFS_Performance_Tuning/Makefile | 13 +++++++++++-- > > > design/Makefile | 13 +++++++++++-- > > > design/XFS_Filesystem_Structure/Makefile | 13 +++++++++++-- > > > 5 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > The change looks fine, but why do we need to build documentation in > > epub format? Empty commit messages are generally considered a bad > > Well, we don't *need*; I just found we *can* (a2x spits it out in a > split second). > > My perception is that epub has become the de facto standard portable > publication format for on-screen reading. So I thought it would be > beneficial to make it available. > > If this is not a consensual stance, it's also a possibility to add > the epub target, but do not include it in default. Ie. make it > available on demand. Does epub support add more dependencies that I have to install? Not opposed, just curious. > > thing - the commit message should explain to us why building epub > > format documentation is desired, what problem it solves, what new > > dependencies it introduces (e.g. build tools), how we should > > determine that the generated documentation is good, etc so that have > > some basis from which to evaluate the change from. > > Sorry; I thought a mere subject suffices if it's obvious what's the > impact of the patch. I agree that giving context / rationale would be > useful. I'll add that, according to the approach we settle with (ie. > whether to include it in default). Yes please. :) --D > Regards, > Csaba >
