<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><div>On 13 May 2015, at 8:24 am, Andreas Jaeger <<a href="mailto:aj@suse.com">aj@suse.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">On 05/13/2015 03:13 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">On 05/13/2015 02:50 PM, Anne Gentle wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite"><br><br>On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Andreas Jaeger <<a href="mailto:aj@suse.com">aj@suse.com</a><br><<a href="mailto:aj@suse.com">mailto:aj@suse.com</a>>> wrote:<br><br> On 05/12/2015 10:55 PM, Lana Brindley wrote:<br><br> I’m fine with this approach. Is the issue happening in other<br> Guides as well?<br><br><br> This is specific to RST.<br><br> Separating the two guides this way allows us some nice cleanup, I<br> wonder why we didn't do it initially;). It's now easier to maintain,<br><br><br>We did it initially to prove we could have conditional inclusions at the<br>file level.<br><br>Now, what I'm not sure of is: have we proven Sphinx doesn't handle<br>conditional inclusions as we'd expect? That certainly is a consideration<br>for the next RST migrations.<br></blockquote><br>We still can do it - using :only: admin_only or :only:user_only on parts<br>of a file. If we want to keep that option, we can leave the tags support<br>in and we do not merge this patch:<br><a href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/182444/">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/182444/</a><br><br>The sphinx extension is usefull for *file* level inclusion and with the<br>separation, we do not need it anymore,<br></blockquote><br>Btw. we also have other means for exclusion now: Marking a file in common as :orphan: or use the exclude_pattern to exclude certain files.<br><br>So, my current understanding: the :only: might be interesting - and the firstapp document is using it, but the file level scope seems not to be needed.<br><br>I'm fine leaving both in for now and see whether we need and reconsider in a few months - or remove now and put it in again later if needed.<br><br>I've marked the single patch as WIP, the others can go in as is,<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Great, thanks Andreas!</div><div><br></div><div>L</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><br><br>Andreas<br>--<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>Andreas Jaeger aj@{<a href="http://suse.com/">suse.com</a>,<a href="http://opensuse.org/">opensuse.org</a>} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi<br> SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany<br> GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton,<br> HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)<br> GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126<br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>OpenStack-docs mailing list<br><a href="mailto:OpenStack-docs@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-docs@lists.openstack.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs</a></div></blockquote></div><br><div>
<div>Lana Brindley<div>Technical Writer</div><div>Rackspace Cloud Builders Australia</div></div><div><br></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br></body></html>