From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: stop using asciidoc no-inline-literal Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 05:13:43 -0400 Message-ID: <20120426091343.GA16663@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120426085156.GB22819@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Thomas Rast , Carlos =?utf-8?Q?Mart=C3=ADn?= Nieto , git@vger.kernel.org To: Matthieu Moy X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 26 11:13:59 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SNKly-0005iR-HX for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:13:58 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754282Ab2DZJNr (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2012 05:13:47 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:45112 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754160Ab2DZJNq (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2012 05:13:46 -0400 Received: (qmail 12621 invoked by uid 107); 26 Apr 2012 09:13:59 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 05:13:59 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 26 Apr 2012 05:13:43 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:09:11AM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > The patch is below. I'm slightly nervous because it means topics in > > flight will need to have their documentation tweaked, too. > > ... or, at worse, they will be broken for a while, and we can grep again > the tip of pu after a few weeks to fix them. Yes. Though having just done that grep, it is quite tedious. You will get many false positives in the existing documentation that do not need changed (e.g., stash@{0}, or a literal backslash that is meant to be in the output). So I think it will be simpler to just diff Documentation/ for the new topics and scan them manually (or grep the diff output). > Plus, the possible breakage due to your patch are compensated by the > existing breakage you fixed ;-). So, I'd say this is a valid concern, > but the benefit seem clearly greater than the drawbacks. Yeah, that was my conclusion, too. -Peff