Re: [PATCH v2 14/24] docs: cpu-freq: convert index.txt to ReST

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>]

Hi Rafael,

Em Mon, 17 Feb 2020 21:06:20 +0100
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> escreveu:

> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 5:20 PM Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > most of the stuff there can be re-used with ReST format,
> > but we need to add an empty TOC and remove the existing
> > entries, as the following conversion patches will be re-adding
> > them, as they're converted.  
> 
> I see a very little value in converting the files in the cpu-freq
> directory from .txt to .rst, which I have told you at least twice.
> 
> They are just old-style driver API documents for cpufreq, but moving
> them under driver-api/ as they are would not be a good idea IMO,
> because at least some of them are outdated (note that the admin-guide
> part of the cpufreq documentation, in the .rst format, is located
> under admin-guide/).
> 
> I haven't had the time to write a proper replacement for them yet and
> honestly I find it quite obnoxious to see these reoccurring attempts
> to blindly convert them to .rst without taking care of their contents
> and location.
> 
> I will take care of these files at one point as promised, but that's
> not going to happen today or tomorrow and please just leave them alone
> if that is not a big deal.

Sorry, I completely forgot that you asked to skip the old cpufreq docs.
My bad!

The thing is that I have now fully converted all docs to ReST (with a
handful exceptions for things that may not make sense to convert, like
configuration files that ends with .txt).

As a matter of helping those (like me) that are trying to finish this
huge conversion/reorganize task, I would very much prefer to keep those
files converted somewhere (or trashed, if their contents is now completely
garbage).

One of the things we discussed at linux-doc ML is to create a "staging"
area where we can place:

- things that aren't ready to be at the main documentation body yet;
- too obsolete docs that may require major work;
- things that we didn't find a good place to put yet.

From the last discussions, it seems we reach a consensus about creating that.

So, I should be preparing a separate patchset adding a Documentation/staging
dir. 

Would it be OK for you if I change the cpufreq patches on this series to
be moving those into a new Documentation/staging/cpufreq directory?

Regards,
Mauro