This avoids having to run 2 separate commands.

i'd use

make -C Doc html

much more compact and what you would usually find on the internet for "cd into the dir and run the html target in it"

I like long-form options for documentation purposes since it's clearer
what the option is for.

I think the fact that the cd paradigm is more commonly encountered is a fairly strong argument in favor of keeping it, but I'm only -0 on this change.

Agree with David.

Another option is to give the shorter option as an alternative.  I for one didn't know about that option but would have liked to.  Patch attached.

Also, this way we can give the shorter option and the reader can still see pretty easily what it is for.

> Another option is to give the shorter option as an alternative.

s/shorter option/one-liner/

This is not a `make' tutorial...

> This is not a `make' tutorial...

I find the latest patch to be a great compromise though. Many people
would be grateful to learn about the -C option. I am one of them.

Well, I'm not -1 about the patch.  But there is something to be said for conciseness, and sprinkling the docs with endless alternate routes will not make it easier to read quickly and get the information you need.

FWIW even if I heard about the one-liner a few times already I can't really seem to remember it, and prefer to do "cd Doc" anyway.  Using "cd Doc" also makes all the subsequent commands shorter (e.g. opening files, running other make targets).
The patch proposed by Chris looks OK to me though.

I find, cd Doc easy to remember as well. If make tricks can be used then I
hope readers note it rather than be exposed via Documentation. Chris's
patch is helpful to me, but still I may not vote a +1 for it to be in
Documentation. thanks.

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Ezio Melotti <report@bugs.python.org>wrote:

>
> Ezio Melotti added the comment:
>
> FWIW even if I heard about the one-liner a few times already I can't
> really seem to remember it, and prefer to do "cd Doc" anyway.  Using "cd
> Doc" also makes all the subsequent commands shorter (e.g. opening files,
> running other make targets).
> The patch proposed by Chris looks OK to me though.
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue16814>
> _______________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> Python-bugs-list mailing list
> Unsubscribe:
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/senthil%40uthcode.com
>
>

FWIW I use make -C Doc all the time but agree with Georg’s point about conciseness.  Ezio, I suggest you bookmark some make doc page if you can’t remember it :)

For the record, we do have tutorial-like documentation and document more than one way to do things in multiple places throughout the devguide.  For example:

http://docs.python.org/devguide/faq.html#how-do-i-list-the-files-in-conflict-after-a-merge

Unlike the short options for long commands, though, it's not obvious to look for something like `make -C` (because you don't already know it's there).  That's why I think this option is more deserving.

Personally, when working on doc patches, I frequently go back and forth between `make html` and `hg diff`.  Knowing about -C means one doesn't have to cd up and down the directory each time or double-check what directory one is in.

I think it's okay and should even be a goal of the devguide to point out more efficient ways to contribute, which may sometimes involve saying more than the minimum (e.g. saying how something works, or stating a more "advanced" way to do something).  I still think we should strive for conciseness within those constraints.  Here is a new patch that makes the current language more concise in addition to some other minor changes.

> I frequently go back and forth between `make html` and `hg diff`.

Mercurial commands work on the whole repo, regardless on the dir you are in (unlike SVN ones).  That's why I usually just cd in Doc/ and do everything (opening files with editor/browser, make *, hg *) from there.  Even when I prepare a patch I can do `hg di > ../patch.diff` if I want it in the root.

I don't think there's any harm in mentioning briefly `make -C Doc html` though.

New changeset 5f24a77e7beb by Chris Jerdonek in branch 'default':
Issue #16814: add "make -C Doc html" short-cut to documentation instructions.
http://hg.python.org/devguide/rev/5f24a77e7beb

I went ahead and committed this if that's okay.  I wasn't sensing any strong objection but -0 from some and +1 or +0 from others.  To compensate for the extra six words, I went ahead and first made the current language more concise here:

http://hg.python.org/devguide/rev/157066a204ab

If anyone feels strongly, I would be happy to revert the change though.

LGTM.