Re: Kernel docs: muddying the waters a bit

From: Daniel Vetter
Date: Wed May 04 2016 - 12:32:34 EST

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 08:57:13AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 May 2016 16:18:27 +0200
>> Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > I'd really like to converge on the markup question, so that we can start
>> > > using all the cool stuff with impunity in gpu documentations.
>> >
>> > Aside: If we decide this now I could send in a pull request for the
>> > rst/sphinx kernel-doc support still for 4.7 (based upon the minimal
>> > markdown/asciidoc code I still have). That would be really awesome ...
>> Sorry for my relative absence...I'm still busy dealing with bureaucracy
>> an ocean away from home. I hope to begin emerging from this mess in the
>> near future.
>> So ... there's the code you have, the work I (+Jani) did, and the work
>> Markus has done. Which would you have me push into 4.7?
>> The sphinx/rst approach does seem, to me, to be the right one, with the
>> existing DocBook structure remaining in place for those who want/need
>> it. I'm inclined toward my stuff as a base to work with, obviously :) But
>> it's hackish at best and needs a lot of cleaning up. It's a proof of
>> concept, but it's hardly finished (one might say it's barely begun...)
>> In the end, I guess, I feel that anything we might try to push for 4.7 is
>> going to look rushed and not ready, and Linus might react accordingly.
>> I'd be more comfortable aiming for 4.8. I *will* have more time to focus
>> on things in that time frame... I suspect you're pretty well fed up with
>> this stuff being pushed back, and rightly so. All I can do is apologize.
>> That said, if you do think there's something out there that is good
>> enough to consider pushing in a week or two, do tell and we can all take
>> a look.
> Well I'd just have taken the asciidoc hacks I have currently in my
> topic/kerneldoc branch, converted to sphinx and looked how it fares. It
> should be fairly minimal, and I think the first step we want to do for the
> long-term plan. I hope I can ready something, and then we can look whether
> it's rushed for 4.7 or not.

Ok, discussed this a bit more with Jani on IRC and he really doesn't
like the old design of that branch (it calls the converter for every
kerneldoc comment). So I guess nothing rushed for 4.7, but hopefully
something for 4.8.
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 -