On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 20:07:47 +0100 Markus Heiser <markus.hei...@darmarit.de> wrote:
> So, what I mean is, the new parser has to generate a complete different reST > output and thats why we can't compare the perl parser with python one on a > reST > basis ... and if reST is different, HTML is different :( > > So we do not have any chance to track regression when switching from > the old to the new parser. > > Thats are my thoughts on this topic, may be you have a solution for this? The solution, I think, is as has been described by others in the thread. I'll make a try at it now :) The objectives in a patch set are something like this: - Replace the kernel-doc utility with one that is easier to maintain and enhance. - Add various enhancements (man pages, linting, better output, better parsing) to the docs build system. What everybody is complaining about here is that all of that stuff is being thrown in together into a single patch set. We don't do things that way because long experience says we'll create a mess that takes a long time to straighten out again. As I said before, I'm very much amenable to the idea of replacing kernel-doc with one that is easier to work with. I haven't yet had the time to look closely enough at yours to have an opinion on whether it does that or not. But, assuming it does, the proper way to make this change is to provide a new kerneldoc that behaves as closely to the old one as possible, with an absolute minimum of output changes. Doing it that way probably seems like a pretty annoying request. But it lets us validate its basic mechanics and be confident that we won't break the docs build in weird ways. It also lets us evaluate the question of whether the replacement has merit in its own right, independent of any other change we want to make. Give me a new kerneldoc that passes those tests, and I'll happily merge it. (I have some sympathy with the idea that we should look into other parsers, but I would not hold up a new kerneldoc that passed those tests on this basis alone.) *Then* we can start adding the other stuff, which, from a first look, appears to be stuff that we very much want to have. Each one of those, too, should stand alone and pass muster on its own merits. Changes presented in this way could be merged in the same development cycle if they are ready, but we need to be able to evaluate each one separately. Does this make sense? We all really appreciate the work you're doing here, we're just asking that it be done in an evolutionary manner so we can evaluate it properly. Thanks, jon
