Skip to content

docs: remove duplicate link#6596

Closed
holmanb wants to merge 1 commit into
canonical:mainfrom
holmanb:holmanb/simpmlify-dev-docs-oops
Closed

docs: remove duplicate link#6596
holmanb wants to merge 1 commit into
canonical:mainfrom
holmanb:holmanb/simpmlify-dev-docs-oops

Conversation

@holmanb
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@holmanb holmanb commented Dec 1, 2025

Proposed Commit Message

docs: remove duplicate link

Additional Context

Follow-up to #6566 requested here #6566 (review)

Test Steps

Merge type

  • Squash merge using "Proposed Commit Message"
  • Rebase and merge unique commits. Requires commit messages per-commit each referencing the pull request number (#<PR_NUM>)

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the documentation This Pull Request changes documentation label Dec 1, 2025
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@blackboxsw blackboxsw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this branch was pulled before your PR merged. Needs a bit of conflict resolution then you can work the patch. I'd expect howto/bugs.rst from main doesn't contain a GitHub Issues: link name.

@holmanb holmanb force-pushed the holmanb/simpmlify-dev-docs-oops branch from f295c0a to b48fe31 Compare December 3, 2025 15:38
Comment thread doc/rtd/howto/bugs.rst

1. Collect the necessary debug logs as described above.
2. `Report an upstream cloud-init bug`_ on GitHub.
2. `Report an upstream cloud-init bug<open issues>` on GitHub.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry for suggesting this earlier.

Turns out I don't think sphinx supports name reference link sharing as it does with document anchor :ref:s.

We'd either need to embed the link directly like so:

Suggested change
2. `Report an upstream cloud-init bug<open issues>` on GitHub.
2. `Report an upstream cloud-init bug <https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/issues>` on GitHub.

or just use separate "named links" in LINKS: as we currently have in the file anyway.
Let's defer to use what we have and avoid inline representation of links. I prefer if we are all down in designated LINKS: section for readability.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@blackboxsw blackboxsw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think sphinx isn't going to support the named LINKS: sharing as it does with :ref:. So let's still with the unique/duplicated named links instead of inline link definitions.

@blackboxsw
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Thank you for this @holmanb but I think duplicated LINKS: is better than inline link definitions at the moment. If you disagree we can go for inline links or a different approach and re-open this PR.

@blackboxsw blackboxsw closed this Dec 4, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

documentation This Pull Request changes documentation

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants