On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 14:56, Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:30 PM Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > wrote: > > > > Ping! Thanks to Alex for doing low-level review of this patchset. > > Overall, looks good to me too. > > Minor nit: configure doesn't check presence of sphinx-build, and on my > fc29, it's sphinx-build-3 :)
It does check, but I forgot to make the makefiles pay attention to the check. That's very irritating that Fedora is using a weird filename for the tool -- what is their justification for doing that? I suppose we'll have to make configure cope :-( > > CI files will probably need to be updated. > > > I'm particularly interested in high-level review: > > * is this the right way to be going? > > * if we committed this and then did a release with the > > docs as they are like this, would that be ok? > > Certainly, it can improve over time imho. > > > * what's the most important next step after this? > > > > For me the next steps are: > > - merge your series! :) > > - integrate the texi doc somehow (apparently Paolo had some solution), > or convert the texi doc to rst (modiy texi2any to do that?) > > - have the docs hosted on www.qemu.org, with some stability (ideally, > we could share links to a specific doc, say a QMP command or an > internal API, that would remain stable). > > I wonder why Daniel qemu-web patches aren't yet merged. I remember > some questions regarding doc import and automation. There will be a > similar problem with sphinx doc. > > (gitlab makes this fairly easy with CI artifcats, fwiw ;-) > > - convert more of our doc to rst > > - add kerneldoc > > - improve the style, for consistency with qemu.org style Thanks for the suggestions. -- PMM
