We already had a super-short blurb, but worth extending it I think:
We're still pretty far away from anything like a consensus, but
there's clearly a lot of people who prefer an as-light as possible
approach to converting existing .txt files to .rst. Make sure this is
properly taken into account an
On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 23:06:57 +0100
Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Hm yeah, separate conversion section makes sense. In that case I'll
> adopt Jani's suggestion for more terseness in overview document, and
> we can merge Mauro's proposal (or something like it) on top. And I'll
> try to rebase onto latest d
Em Thu, 8 Dec 2016 23:06:57 +0100
Daniel Vetter escreveu:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> wrote:
> > Em Wed, 7 Dec 2016 12:39:24 -0700
> > Jonathan Corbet escreveu:
> >
> >> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 16:42:58 +0100
> >> Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>
> >> > We already had a
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
wrote:
> Em Wed, 7 Dec 2016 12:39:24 -0700
> Jonathan Corbet escreveu:
>
>> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 16:42:58 +0100
>> Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>
>> > We already had a super-short blurb, but worth extending it I think:
>> > We're still pretty far aw
Em Wed, 7 Dec 2016 12:39:24 -0700
Jonathan Corbet escreveu:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 16:42:58 +0100
> Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> > We already had a super-short blurb, but worth extending it I think:
> > We're still pretty far away from anything like a consensus, but
> > there's clearly a lot of peop
On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 16:42:58 +0100
Daniel Vetter wrote:
> We already had a super-short blurb, but worth extending it I think:
> We're still pretty far away from anything like a consensus, but
> there's clearly a lot of people who prefer an as-light as possible
> approach to converting existing .t
We already had a super-short blurb, but worth extending it I think:
We're still pretty far away from anything like a consensus, but
there's clearly a lot of people who prefer an as-light as possible
approach to converting existing .txt files to .rst. Make sure this is
properly taken into account an
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 08:52:41AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 02:17:52PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:23:14AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > We already had a super-short blurb, but worth extending it I think:
> > > We'r
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 05:08:30PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Sorry, but I agree with Daniel here: we should provide a guide
> > for those people that will be helping with the document conversion.
>
> That goal is not mutually exclusive with
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 02:17:52PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:23:14AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > We already had a super-short blurb, but worth extending it I think:
> > We're still pretty far away from anything like a consensus, but
> > there's clea
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Sorry, but I agree with Daniel here: we should provide a guide
> for those people that will be helping with the document conversion.
That goal is not mutually exclusive with keeping this document concise.
That is all.
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula,
Hi Peter,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:23:14AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> We already had a super-short blurb, but worth extending it I think:
> We're still pretty far away from anything like a consensus, but
> there's clearly a lot of people who prefer an as-light as possible
> approach to conver
Em Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:28:12 +0100
Markus Heiser escreveu:
> Am 29.11.2016 um 10:23 schrieb Daniel Vetter :
>
> > We already had a super-short blurb, but worth extending it I think:
> > We're still pretty far away from anything like a consensus, but
> > there's clearly a lot of people who prefer
Em Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:38:55 +0200
Jani Nikula escreveu:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > We already had a super-short blurb, but worth extending it I think:
> > We're still pretty far away from anything like a consensus, but
> > there's clearly a lot of people who prefer an as-li
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> We already had a super-short blurb, but worth extending it I think:
> We're still pretty far away from anything like a consensus, but
> there's clearly a lot of people who prefer an as-light as possible
> approach to converting existing .txt files to .rs
Am 29.11.2016 um 10:23 schrieb Daniel Vetter :
> We already had a super-short blurb, but worth extending it I think:
> We're still pretty far away from anything like a consensus, but
> there's clearly a lot of people who prefer an as-light as possible
> approach to converting existing .txt files
We already had a super-short blurb, but worth extending it I think:
We're still pretty far away from anything like a consensus, but
there's clearly a lot of people who prefer an as-light as possible
approach to converting existing .txt files to .rst. Make sure this is
properly taken into account an
Em Mon, 28 Nov 2016 17:16:22 +0100
Daniel Vetter escreveu:
> We already had a super-short blurb, but worth extending it I think:
> We're still pretty far away from anything like a consensus, but
> there's clearly a lot of people who prefer an as-light as possible
> approach to converting existing
We already had a super-short blurb, but worth extending it I think:
We're still pretty far away from anything like a consensus, but
there's clearly a lot of people who prefer an as-light as possible
approach to converting existing .txt files to .rst. Make sure this is
properly taken into account an
19 matches
Mail list logo
