On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 14:37:33 +0200 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 14:39:37 -0700 > Dan Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > > Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Is there supposed to be a difference (or distinction) in the contents of > > > > > > > > Documentation/process/maintainer-handbooks.rst > > > > and > > > > Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > > > > ? > > > > > > > > Can they be combined into one location? > > > > > > Late to the party, sorry ... the original idea, I believe, was that > > > maintainer-handbooks.rst would be for developers looking for a guidebook > > > for a specific subsystem, while maintainer-entry-profile.rst was about > > > how maintainers themselves should write their subsystem guide. > > > Doubtless things have drifted since then... But the intended audiences > > > were different, so it might be good to think about bringing them back > > > into focus. > > > > Right, I think something (roughly / hand-wavy) like the below is the > > intent. However, as I write that I notice that the combined list is a > > bit of a mess. I also notice that there are more "P:" entries in > > MAINTAINERS than there are entries in this maintainer-handbooks.rst > > list. > > > > So this probably wants to be a script that can build Documentation links > > from MAINTAINERS, or otherwise provide a script for developers to query > > a kernel tree for additional submission guides. It is probably not as > > important for the built docs to link all guides as it is for developers > > (or their agents) to live query a tree they are developing against. > > There is already a Python script which parses MAINTAINERS file > (Documentation/sphinx/maintainers_include.py). > > Currently, it expects a Sphinx meta-tag inside > Documentation/process/maintainers.rst: > > .. maintainers-include:: > > I guess it shouldn't be hard to add support there for a > > .. maintainers-profile:: > > Making it creating a set of cross-references is probably easy. Not > sure how easy/hard would be to create a TOC tree, though. It was actually easier than what I would expect ;-) Just submitted a patch series doing that: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/[email protected]/T/#t > > diff --git a/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > > b/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > > index 6020d188e13d..58e2af333692 100644 ... If you transform this diff into a patch, it would make sense to add together with the next version of my RFC ;-) -- Thanks, Mauro
