Re: [PATCH] doc: Explain light-handed markup preference a bit better

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 08:52:41AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 02:17:52PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> > 
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:23:14AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > We already had a super-short blurb, but worth extending it I think:
> > > We're still pretty far away from anything like a consensus, but
> > > there's clearly a lot of people who prefer an as-light as possible
> > > approach to converting existing .txt files to .rst. Make sure this is
> > > properly taken into account and clear.
> > > 
> > > Motivated by discussions with Peter and Christoph and others.
> > > 
> > > v2:
> > > - Mention that existing headings should be kept when converting
> > >   existing .txt files (Mauro).
> > > - Explain that we prefer :: for quoting code, it's easier on the
> > >   eyes (Mauro).
> > > - Explain that blindly converting outdated docs is harmful. Motived
> > >   by comments Peter did in our discussion.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Since this was motivated by a discussion you've (re)started, does this
> > sufficiently address your concerns for conversion from plain text .txt to
> > plain text .rst of existing documents? Anything you'd want to see changed?
> 
> Seems OK to me, but there's already a bunch of bike-shedding in this
> thread.

Thanks for taking a look, I'll resend trying to address the other feedback
and make everyone happy.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch