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

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

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 - Explain that blindly converting outdated docs is harmful.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@lwn.net>
> > Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> 
> 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.