[pve-devel] [PATCH docs 1/6] ceph: add anchors for use in troubleshooting section

[Max Carrara]

On Tue Feb 4, 2025 at 10:22 AM CET, Alexander Zeidler wrote:
> On Mon Feb 3, 2025 at 5:19 PM CET, Max Carrara wrote:
> > On Mon Feb 3, 2025 at 3:27 PM CET, Alexander Zeidler wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Alexander Zeidler <a.zeidler at proxmox.com>
> >> ---
> >
> > Some high-level feedback (see comments inline and in patches otherwise):
> >
> > - The writing style is IMO quite clear and straightforward, nice work!
> Thank you for the review!
>
> >
> > - In patch 03, the "_disk_health_monitoring" anchor reference seems to
> >   break my build for some reason. Does this also happen on your end? The
> >   single-page docs ("pve-admin-guide.html") seem to build just fine
> >   otherwise.
> Same for me, I will fix it.
>
> >
> > - Regarding implicitly / auto-generated anchors, is it fine to break
> >   those in general or not? See my other comments inline here.
> >
> > - There are a few tiny style things I personally would correct, but if
> >   you disagree with them, feel free to leave them as they are.
> I will look into it! Using longer link texts sounds good!
>
> >
> > All in all this seems pretty solid; the stuff regarding the anchors
> > needs to be clarified first (whether it's okay to break auto-generated
> > ones & the one anchor that makes my build fail). Otherwise, pretty good!
> See my two comments below.
>
> >
> >>  pveceph.adoc | 8 ++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/pveceph.adoc b/pveceph.adoc
> >> index da39e7f..93c2f8d 100644
> >> --- a/pveceph.adoc
> >> +++ b/pveceph.adoc
> >> @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ and vocabulary
> >>  footnote:[Ceph glossary {cephdocs-url}/glossary].
> >>  
> >>  
> >> +[[pve_ceph_recommendation]]
> >>  Recommendations for a Healthy Ceph Cluster
> >>  ------------------------------------------
> >
> > AsciiDoc automatically generated an anchor for the heading above
> > already, and it's "_recommendations_for_a_healthy_ceph_cluster"
> > apparently. So, there's no need to provide one here explicitly, since it
> > already exists; it also might break old links that refer to the
> > documentation.
> For this I searched our forum before, it shows 12 results, the heading
> was only added about a year ago. But apart from this specific anchor,
> IMHO it can be okay to break such links in certain cases:
>
> * The main reasons for not using the auto generated ones are, that those
>   are not stable (in case of changing the title) and can also be very
>   long when using it with xref:...[...]. Such lines get even longer (and
>   an awkward combined name) when using it as a prefix for sub sections
>   (as often done).
> * Since with the break there might have been added new or updated
>   information in those chapters/sections, old forum posts may no longer
>   be accurate anyway.
> * In the Ceph chapter for example, we have been using the explicit
>   "pve_ceph_" or "pveceph_" for years, so IMHO it should (almost
>   always?) be added with adding a new section.
>
> >
> > Though, perhaps in a separate series, you could look for all implicitly
> > defined anchors and set them explicitly..? Not sure if that's something
> > we want, though.
> This would break a lot of links at the same time, so far I am not aware
> about a notable benefit.
>

I agree with all of your points made here; so, all in all, great work!
Ping me when you shoot out v2, then I'll have one last look. :)