Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <5a40b453e9a419c24af1e368711d504a9086c882.camel@darmarit.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: tidy up TOCs and refs to license-rules.rst
From:   Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@darmarit.de>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Jonas Oberg <jonas@fsfe.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Sat, 01 Sep 2018 09:32:59 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20180831165015.1461bdc7@lwn.net>
References: <20180814114312.23201-1-markus.heiser@darmarit.de>
         <20180831165015.1461bdc7@lwn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Am Freitag, den 31.08.2018, 16:50 -0600 schrieb Jonathan Corbet:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 13:43:12 +0200
> Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@darmarit.de> wrote:
> 
> > The documentation and TOCs are organized in a manner of a tree. Adding a
> > TOC to
> > the root, which refers to a file which is located in a subfolder forms a
> > grid. Those TOCs are a bit confusing and thats why we get additional error
> > messages while building partial documentation::
> > 
> >   $ make SPHINXDIRS=process htmldocs
> >   ...
> >   checking consistency... Documentation/process/license-rules.rst: \
> >   WARNING: document isn't included in any toctree
> > 
> > To fix it, the *root-license-TOC* is replaced by a reference and the
> > 'license-roles.txt' is added to the Documentation/process/index.rst TOC.
> > 
> > BTW: there was an old licences remark in Documentation/process/howto.rst
> > which
> > is also updated, mentioning SPDX and pointing to the license-rules.rst
> 
> So those are two separate changes and should really have been in two
> different patches.  I guess we can let that slide just this
> once...applied.

Ah, OK .. thanks!

> I do have to wonder if the licensing rules are *really* the most
> important thing in our docs - the thing that readers should encounter
> first, before anything else.  I think I'll revisit that at another time...

OT: my patch was to fix the structural licensing mess. Feel free to change,
what you have been applied with commit #aa19a176df95

-- Markus --