Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf, doc: use internal linking for link to netdev FAQ
From: David Vernet
Date: Mon Mar 13 2023 - 09:57:00 EST
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 07:37:25AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> David Vernet <void@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Sure, but there are practicalities to consider here. It takes O(minutes)
> > to do a full docs build, as opposed to O(seconds). I've done reviews of
> > docs patches where the engineer tried to build the docs tree, but
> > thought it was hung and ended up cancelling it. Full docs builds also
> > unfortunately spew quite a few warnings in other subtrees. You have to
> > carefully wade through the warnings in those other subtrees to ensure
> > you haven't added any new ones.
> >
> > It's hard enough to get people to write documentation. It's also hard
> > enough to get them to test building their documentation before
> > submitting it. I think there is a lot of value in being able to build
> > the documentation for the subtree you're contributing to, and be able to
> > have some expectation that it builds cleanly. Let's not make it more
> > difficult for the people who are actually adding substantive
> > documentation.
>
> I get your point, but that is essentially saying that there should be no
> linkages between our documentation subtrees, which defeats much of the
> purpose of using a system like Sphinx.
I certainly agree that inter-subtree links are great to have, though in
my opinion, other features such as linking kernel-doc comments, auto
section labeling, etc make Sphinx very useful in their own right. But
yes, having inter-subtree links is of course a useful feature as well.
> In this specific case, though, there is a better solution. Text like:
>
> see the netdev FAQ (Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst)
>
> will add links in the built docs, and also tells readers of the
> plain-text files where they should be looking. Without adding warnings.
Nice, seems like the best of both worlds. A syntax clarification
question: are you saying that this would work?
> see the `netdev-FAQ`_.
>
> <snip>
>
> .. _netdev-FAQ: Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
Or is it required to have the full path inline in the text, as in your
example:
> see the netdev FAQ (Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst)
The benefit of the former is of course that you only have to specify the
link in one place.
> For the bigger problem, the right answer is to start using intersphinx.
> I guess I need to get serious about playing with that.
Based on a quick online search, that indeed sounds like the ideal
solution.
Thanks,
David