improve linking inside docs

[ThomasWaldmann]

No description provided.

[ThomasWaldmann]

merge after #6184 (conflicts).

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #6263 (3428b9f) into master (5fec0b8) will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head 3428b9f differs from pull request most recent head c56b15f. Consider uploading reports for the commit c56b15f to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #6263      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   83.22%   83.24%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          38       38              
  Lines       10392    10392              
  Branches     2041     2041              
==========================================
+ Hits         8649     8651       +2     
+ Misses       1234     1233       -1     
+ Partials      509      508       -1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/borg/archiver.py	80.38% <ø> (ø)
src/borg/archive.py	82.19% <0.00%> (+0.12%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 24e8b38...c56b15f. Read the comment docs.

[ThomasWaldmann]

when backporting, do NOT backport the py 3.5 -> 3.8 docs link change, 1.1-maint is still using 3.5+.

[hexagonrecursion]

Hello. I have noticed that the exact same code is sometimes in a different order between 1.1 and master. This is causing many conflicts when using git cherry-pick. How did this happen?

Workaround:

git show "$COMMIT" | git apply -

Update: sometimes I have to manually remove chunks of the patch and apply the changes manually

[ThomasWaldmann]

don't remember. maybe some cleanup?

[ThomasWaldmann]

but i hope we can soon do a bit less 1.1-maint backporting.

after 1.2.x is stable enough so everybody who wants "latest" can use it, we can limit backports to critical stuff.

otoh, backports might become more difficult when we run black and some "python upgrader" on the source.

[ThomasWaldmann]

also, borg.archiver is a candidate for splitting into a package of modules (same as happened for borg.helpers a while ago).