From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>, lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com
Cc: jani.nikula@intel.com, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
rdunlap@infradead.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] docs: submit-checklist: change to autonumbered lists
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2024 08:55:51 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8734t7z4vs.fsf@meer.lwn.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8df0c587-8f5b-4523-89d7-dc458ab2c1df@gmail.com>
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> writes:
>> -1) If you use a facility then #include the file that defines/declares
>> +#. If you use a facility then #include the file that defines/declares
>> that facility. Don't depend on other header files pulling in ones
>> that you use.
>
> Wait. This will render the list starting from:
>
> 1. If you use ...
>
> In patch 1/1, you didn't change the ")".
>
> It was Jani who suggested "#.", but "#)" would work just fine.
So I'm a little confused. Is the objection that it renders the number
as "1." rather than "1)"? That doesn't seem like the biggest of deals,
somehow, but am I missing something?
A bigger complaint I might raise is that auto-numbering restarts the
enumeration in each subsection, so we have a lot of steps #1, which is a
definite change from before.
That, of course, can be fixed by giving an explicit starting number in
each subsection, partially defeating the point of the change in the
first place.
I honestly have to wonder: does this document need the enumerated list
at all? We don't refer to the numbers anywhere, so I don't think there
is much useful information there. How about just using regular bulleted
lists instead?
That said, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, and can
certainly apply it as-is if that's the consensus on what we should do.
Thanks,
jon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-03 15:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-29 3:07 [PATCH v2 0/3] docs: submit-checklist: structure by category Lukas Bulwahn
2024-02-29 3:07 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] " Lukas Bulwahn
2024-02-29 3:07 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] docs: submit-checklist: use subheadings Lukas Bulwahn
2024-02-29 6:04 ` Randy Dunlap
2024-02-29 3:07 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] docs: submit-checklist: change to autonumbered lists Lukas Bulwahn
2024-02-29 6:06 ` Randy Dunlap
2024-02-29 7:52 ` Akira Yokosawa
2024-03-03 15:55 ` Jonathan Corbet [this message]
2024-03-03 18:19 ` Randy Dunlap
2024-03-04 1:14 ` Akira Yokosawa
2024-02-29 10:25 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] docs: submit-checklist: structure by category Jani Nikula
2024-02-29 10:36 ` Lukas Bulwahn
2024-03-03 16:00 ` Jonathan Corbet
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8734t7z4vs.fsf@meer.lwn.net \
--to=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=akiyks@gmail.com \
--cc=jani.nikula@intel.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=workflows@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.