On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 09:29:41 +0100 Peter Rosin <p...@axentia.se> wrote:
> Don't know if this is worth adding, but it might answer at least a few > questions. > > It looks ok when I view the htmldocs output, but I'm not all that certain > this is good to go? Almost, but I have one request: the new mux.rst file is rather unenlightening for somebody who reads it directly in the docs tree. If you want to keep the bulk of the text in the source I can live with that, but can mux.rst at least get an introductory paragraph saying what it covers (what *is* the mux subsystem?) and why readers might want to go find the rest? Thanks, jon
