Change all moved headings to rubrics #10913
Conversation
|
|
||
| Build System Interface | ||
| ====================== | ||
| .. _`2-build-system-interface`: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These start-with-a-number references are here to let the anchors generated by Sphinx be the same (#build-system-interface) while allowing various instances of a rubric with the same content have the same anchor tag.
We could do this with :name: as well, but this felt more explicit and more as something we'd want to remove in, like, 1-2 years.
This ensures that they don't show up in the table of contents sidebar, which is part of the point of moving this content into dedicated pages.
pradyunsg
force-pushed
the
remove-moved-headings-from-toc
branch
from
dfa4bf2
to
347e724
Compare
pradyunsg
added
the
skip news
|
I'm gonna merge this without reviews, since I reckon this is either (a) non-controversial or (b) something that people don't care strongly about. In either case, if I'm wrong, holler here with an @pradyunsg if you have a problem with this change and I'd be happy to revert. :) |
|
@henryiii see this PR. |
But they are not. Now I have to add |
|
The content was moved in a previous PR, and I wanted to remove the moved content’s headings from the sidebar of the page, so I’ve changed it from the headings to rubrics. The rubrics generates an anchor tag that behaves the same as Sphinx would generate for the headings, so URLs aren’t broken. The intersphinx for these was unintentionally broken, although it would be better to reinstate those to point at the new location for the content instead of anyone using the integer-prefixed names. I didn’t really think that we cared about strict backwards compatibility on intersphinx references (this content moved months ago so it’s an outdated link anyway), but we can reinstate this one in the new place if needs be. :) I’ll do that once my work day is over/tomorrow. If someone wants to file a PR before I can, please feel welcome to. |
|
I don't have a preference, I'm just trying to un-break packaging.python.org. I'm happy to point at whatever is the most stable. Since the page moved once, maybe a proper intersphinx reference would be best, just in case it ever moves again? |
|
CI passed the build in pypa/packaging.python.org#1031, so the concern that @henryiii raised has been resolved. :) |
This is a follow up to #10899.