Unfortunately the entire improved docbook project died at KS in a
massive bikeshed. So we need to carry this around in drm private trees
forever :(
I discussed this with Dave at kernel summit and he's ok with this.
I'll maintain the asciidoc support in topic/kerneldoc in the
drm-intel.git tree. T
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:07:59 +0100
Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Unfortunately the entire improved docbook project died at KS in a
> massive bikeshed. So we need to carry this around in drm private trees
> forever :(
I don't think that's an entirely helpful way to look at things, honestly.
Changing how
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 03:12:26PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:07:59 +0100
> Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately the entire improved docbook project died at KS in a
> > massive bikeshed. So we need to carry this around in drm private trees
> > forever :(
>
> I don
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 12:13:45 +0100
Daniel Vetter wrote:
> I just figured there's no way this could get it, and I'd
> much rather improve the docs themselves than trying to convince core
> kernel folks that this might be useful.
So I'm not quite sure why you figured that; I never said it, certain
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> In my mind, there's clearly no good that can come from (further) delaying
> something that works in favor of an "it would be nice" that may never
> even exist. So I'm currently thinking that I'll pull this into the docs
> tree once the merge window is
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 06:12:12PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 12:13:45 +0100
> Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> > I just figured there's no way this could get it, and I'd
> > much rather improve the docs themselves than trying to convince core
> > kernel folks that this might be
On Tue, 2016-01-12 at 09:34 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 06:12:12PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 12:13:45 +0100
> > Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >
> > > I just figured there's no way this could get it, and I'd
> > > much rather improve the docs themselv
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:06:17AM +, Graham Whaley wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-01-12 at 09:34 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 06:12:12PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > > On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 12:13:45 +0100
> > > Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > >
> > > > I just figured there's no
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 12:13:45 +0100
> Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
>> I just figured there's no way this could get it, and I'd
>> much rather improve the docs themselves than trying to convince core
>> kernel folks that this might be useful.
>
> So I'm not q
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 22:03:26 +0200
Jani Nikula wrote:
> What if we added support for some markup language as an alternative to
> DocBook for the high level documentation? What if we taught kernel-doc
> to output said markup natively, and included those generated pieces into
> the high level docum
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 22:03:26 +0200
> Jani Nikula wrote:
>
>> What if we added support for some markup language as an alternative to
>> DocBook for the high level documentation? What if we taught kernel-doc
>> to output said markup natively, and includ
11 matches
Mail list logo