Hi Chris,
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 2:09 PM Chris Lamb wrote:
>
> I would concede that RST might be more suitable for more complex
> requirements indeed.
Ok, I am going to merge this soon. At least it's a step in the right
direction. Let's see if we all can get comfortable with the RST
format.
I
Hi Felix,
> tldr; I am comfortable with any format you like, but please consider
> that I have to re-write much of the documentation. Could we convert to
> Markdown when I am done?
I would concede that RST might be more suitable for more complex
requirements indeed.
However, if you are to
Felix Lechner writes:
> As you already wrote, RST and Markdown are not that different,
> certainly when compared to Docbook. RST, however, is a lot better
> suited for technical documentation, especially APIs. [1]
For what it's worth, we looked at Markdown for Debian Policy and went with
RST
Hi Chris,
tldr; I am comfortable with any format you like, but please consider
that I have to re-write much of the documentation. Could we convert to
Markdown when I am done?
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 10:17 AM Chris Lamb wrote:
>
> So, whilst this might sound like the usual tedious "my format is
Hi Felix,
> Lintian's manual was converted to reStructuredText format. This MR uses
> rst2html to generate the HTML version.
First, thanks for working on this. Really appreciated.
So, whilst this might sound like the usual tedious "my format is
better than your format" argument, the consensus
Control: tag -1 + patch
Lintian's manual was converted to reStructuredText format. This MR uses
rst2html to generate the HTML version.
https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/merge_requests/245
This RST file was generated from the existing manual in Docbook format
using:
pandoc -f
6 matches
Mail list logo
