I am against this change. I think it is important to make the installation instructions be intelligible without an internet connection. Maybe the change that is needed in to make it clear the rst is the source of the rendered page.

But if they're installing from source they can find the file in the source, especially since the raw rst is the path to the file. Or they're building the docs locally and then this is the path to the file in the local docs.

I think it is confusing, if for no other reason than installing.rst doesn't exist. But we should definitely point to the source file as well, which shouldn't be that confusing for someone reading a file that is itself in the source.

I think it is confusing, if for no other reason than installing.rst doesn't exist.

We have a top level
https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/blob/main/INSTALL.rst which has one line in it which is the path to the full install docs. I think this was either done to satisfy GitHub or cause it's a convention and folks installing from source usually know to look for it.

But yes will compromise and wordsmith to include the path to source.

I don't really follow the need-source argument. Most users will access README.rst through github because it's the entry page there. They certainly don't need the source information - it's only distracting clutter for them.

Which user group would be affected by removing the source? People who have cloned the repo, then go offline, and then want to install from sources. I attribute these people enough expertise to find INSTALL.rst as well.

But 🤷

They certainly don't need the source information - it's only distracting clutter for them

was gonna shove it in a footnote, but that only works if there are other footnotes on the page

made it a little more concise, but put it in a second commit if it's not working.

was gonna shove it in a footnote, but that only works if there are other footnotes on the page

Footnote would be a good choice here. The source location is only an addendum. If that does not work, how about

see [link](or it’s corresponding source [path]).

So best way to do footnote version is probably by adding a notes section: (as an aside, the research notice should probably not be a subsection of the citation)

also squished it down to see [link], which is generated from (path) based on your comments and not gonna bother rebasing again unless I get an approval

Let's not overthink this.