Re: [PATCH 0/4] Update maintainer-pgp-guide.rst Chinese translation

On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 07:18:56PM +0800, Dongliang Mu wrote:
> > [...]
> > Thanks for emphasizing this. While I do remember I used "make cleandocs
> > && make htmldocs", and checked among those long lines of red warning
> > output to find anything caused by my commit, I indeed didn't notice this
> > warning appearing at the early stage of the compilation.
> > 
> > It seems that I need to have my eyes checked soon. ;-)
> > 
> > Apologize for my recklessness.
> > 
> > Even so, do we have any way to distinguish these long-standing warnings
> > from the new warnings that appear during compilation? In fact, every
> > time I was worried that I might not have noticed the newly appeared
> > warning. Unfortunately, this time it really happened. (For example,
> > setting a new color? for new warnings?) Do you have a better idea or
> > tips for this?
> 
> My suggestion is to keep the log in each file, and you can easily observe
> the diff. Otherwise, even I can ignore some warnings.

Ah, makes sense! I was actually wondering earlier why we need to put
this log in the directory instead of just keeping it in the CLI.

(I definitely won´t admit that the log file annoyed me a few times
because I accidentally included it with 'git add .' and then had to 'git
commit --amend' right after) ;-)

Very useful, thanks!

> And many contributors are coming together to fix those warnings. If they are
> done, all new warnings are easily captured. Let us do more contribution to
> help this.

Yeah, eliminating these warnings at their root is the straightforward
solution.

And that's exactly what Jon expects:

Kernel Recipes 2019 - Kernel documentation: past, present, and future
#Build warnings

https://youtu.be/1LuAIUKqKDk?t=876&si=XgHhHtukyjyDdtzF

It'd certainly be worth spending some time with folks from those
subsystems to get these warnings fixed once and for all.

> > Btw I've been trying to know more about Sphinx and kernel-docs, hope my
> > mistake won't happen again.
> 
> That change can fix problem. The underlying problem is RST syntax. Maybe you
> can have a look at this or query it in the LLM.

Absolutely. I did have relatively little experience writing rst before.
But that's definitely no excuse - I'll try to pick it up quickly.

Thanks!