From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] doc: change doc line length limit in contributors guide Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 19:18:07 +0200 Message-ID: <3737023.yBcUv04Hz8@xps> References: <1494511780-5732-1-git-send-email-john.mcnamara@intel.com> <6951954.sJVyEfo4GT@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: "Mcnamara, John" Return-path: Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD1B92952 for ; Thu, 11 May 2017 19:18:10 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 11/05/2017 18:11, Mcnamara, John: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > > > > ... > > > -* The recommended style for the DPDK documentation is to put sentences > > on separate lines. > > > - This allows for easier reviewing of patches. > > > - Multiple sentences which are not separated by a blank line are joined > > automatically into paragraphs, for example:: > > > +* Lines in sentences should be less than 80 characters and wrapped at > > > + words. Multiple sentences which are not separated by a blank line > > > +are joined > > > + automatically into paragraphs. > > > > Why not keep the recommendation of separating sentences? > > This isn't a recommendation. It is just pointing out that lines and sentences > are joined into paragraphs. Maybe that is obvious and doesn't need to be > stated. I'm talking about "The recommended style for the DPDK documentation is to put sentences on separate lines." I like this recommendation. > > > + testpmd -l 2-3 -n 4 \ > > > + --vdev=virtio_user0,path=/dev/vhost- > > net,queues=2,queue_size=1024 \ > > > + -- -i --txqflags=0x0 --disable-hw-vlan --enable-lro \ > > > + --enable-rx-cksum --txq=2 --rxq=2 --rxd=1024 --txd=1024 > > > > Garbage? > > I hope not. I took it from one of the examples in the docs to demonstrate > how a long command could be wrapped and still be functional. Should I > clarify that more, or remove it? Ah sorry, misreading the patch.