Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 11 Jun 2022 12:15:54 +0900 | From | Akira Yokosawa <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] docs/doc-guide: Update guidelines for title adornments |
| |
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 18:08:43 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 11:11 AM Jani Nikula > <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote: Thank Jani and Miguel for chiming in! As this is a RFC patch, I'm glad to have nice comments from both of you.
>> >> When I wrote the original guidelines, it was my subjective decision to >> steer towards using the same title adornment styles and ordering across >> the kernel documentation. I intentionally left out all the >> reStructuredText details about this, because the definitive >> documentation is the reStructuredText documentation we can refer to. >> >> While the "Nth level title" is a more precise description, I'm not sure >> it's actually helpful without describing how these levels should map to >> kernel documentation structure. (Not saying the original did that >> either, but then there wasn't much structure to speak of.) I agree that we need to cover in doc-guide the way the kernel documentation is organized and managed. Total lack of such documentation is kind of surprising to me.
> > To give a bit of context: this patch followed from a question I asked > to Jonathan and Akira privately. Currently it is hard to tell the > "nesting level", and even worse, existing files are not consistent and > checking is not automated. Therefore, an easy way to handle this is to > request to follow the same pattern regardless of nesting across the > tree. > >> Improving the documentation on documentation is great, but I think it's >> a bad sign when length of the notes and warnings on something far exceed >> the length of the thing being documented. The bulk of the text should be >> helpful enough for people to DTRT, while leaving out exhaustive >> descriptions of all the details that should just be references to >> reStructuredText documentation.
So, I was not aware of such a hidden rule on what should _not_ be in doc-guide. :-) In my opinion, RST documentation is not easy to follow especially for new contributors, and putting some useful tips somewhere in doc-guide would improve situation.
I agree with you that those notes and warning don't belong to guidelines.
Maybe add a section collecting RST tips and tricks mainly consisting of pointers to RST and docutils documentation.
> > Perhaps we can move the rationale to the commit message, and keep only > the current rules in the document. What about something like: > > """ > Please stick to this relative order of adornments within each file > (i.e. regardless of nesting level across the kernel tree): > > 1. ``=`` with overline. > 2. ``=``. > 3. ``-``. > 4. ``~``. > > For instance:: > > ===== > First > ===== > > Second > ====== > > Third > ----- > > Fourth > ~~~~~~ > """
I'm more inclined to keep "level"s in the example. Without them, a new contributor might be confused to use those adornments exactly in that order, for example:
============== Document title ==============
Chapter A =========
Section A.1 -----------
Section A.2 ~~~~~~~~~~~
Section A.3 ???????????
Unlikely, but possible...
Anyway, I'll post a v2 for your further comments. Might take a while.
Thanks, Akira > > Cheers, > Miguel
| |