Re: [RFC bpf-next v2 3/3] docs: Split filter.txt into separate documents.
From: Tobin C. Harding
Date: Tue Aug 07 2018 - 19:19:59 EST
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 07:14:05AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 12:48:44 +1000
> "Tobin C. Harding" <me@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > How about these steps:
> > 1. start with foo.txt
> > 2. do typo and grammar fixes (any number of patches).
> > 3. rename to foo.rst, do whitespace changes, code snippet
> > indentation, heading adornments, update references to this file.
> > (single patch).
> > 4. Fix up references in the file text to use RST (i.e :ref: blah)
> > 5. Fix up RST markers (backticks etc). (any number of patches)
> That can certainly work; just don't call it foo.rst until it actually is a
> valid RST file.
> And, of course, go easy with the later steps and try to avoid the
> temptation to mark up everything; we really want to preserve the
> readability of the plain-text files.
Yeah I get over zealous sometimes, I'll keep it in mind.
What is the current view on references embedded in the text versus a
local label with the full reference at the bottom of the file. I've
seen both and do not know which is _more_ readable?
1. some random text referencing
:ref:`Documentation/path/to/file.rst <label>` and more text
2. some random text referencing `file`_ and more text
.. _file path/to/file.rst:
Although the later form is found in Documentation/ it does not seem work
for local build (since the path is relative) or am I doing something
wrong with my local build?
And for the first form I could not get the html link produced to work if
the <label> was omitted - this label seems superfluous if it is to the
top of the file (I've already added a couple of such labels).
These are minor issues, answer only if and when you have time.