Re: Minor RST rant

From: Jonathan Corbet
Date: Fri Jul 24 2020 - 13:33:27 EST

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 13:22:00 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > It is tempting to describe the second kind as starting with a
> > component, but that isn't always accurate: a pathname can lack both
> > slashes and components, it can be empty, in other words. This is
> > generally forbidden in POSIX, but some of those "xxx``at``" system calls
> > in Linux permit it when the ``AT_EMPTY_PATH`` flag is given. For
> > example, if you have an open file descriptor on an executable file you
> > can execute it by calling `execveat() <execveat_>`_ passing
> > the file descriptor, an empty path, and the ``AT_EMPTY_PATH`` flag.
> All those `` are throwing me off to understanding what is being written.

Give people a tool, some of them will make more use of it than you might
like. I do my best to push back against excessive markup (which all of the
above qualifies as, as far as I'm concerned), but I can't really even do
that will all that goes through my tree, much less all the docs stuff
merged by others.

The markup in question was seemingly added by Neil; I've added him to CC
in case he wants to comment on it.

I'm not sure what to do other than to continue to push for minimal use of
intrusive markup.