From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F37201F453 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 02:03:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728980AbfDXCDS (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:03:18 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:61659 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726461AbfDXCDS (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:03:18 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A31613EDBE; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:03:16 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=date:from:to :cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to; s=sasl; bh=+psRUzrFV5YkKxn9fLxRlNJrjEs=; b=q3vdaAJ Ay+y/dX/K7BWHw/Xy6ANJe3/NTWvawcW+TadC0F9Qa5so7mzS2EinWezU4tpUdhP 5dZ/VPW65Zcfvh2F6S7rD3RMUQj15+r2WQenrHhX/NSXNXzoWv6a5RCncxiVxAXw zg2+5BhgVV8Ut//RS1E51mYxhaqPSptCEGBA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=date:from:to:cc :subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Hp4PFryIp4HHIq9KX82adeRGu607bQkCL p/EPWyAzo1rULrxY4/x3+CLWs1+jOCziG9pM6nK7zKLChkKtPiJ/kyk7rSlUgMec 9hJQM+qJ7XY8y5w93jDokLwaNNtt7qsa4Ar0HkgucgjbP5/BCWGKBCKvPMDfmkBW 6BEbrrJoAQ= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10E8913EDBD; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:03:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [173.67.141.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8BBEC13EDBC; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:03:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:03:13 -0400 From: Todd Zullinger To: Jeff King Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc/ls-files: put nested list for "-t" option into block Message-ID: <20190424020313.GP3654@pobox.com> References: <20190422151541.GA1633@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190422151541.GA1633@sigill.intra.peff.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1 (2018-12-01) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 1F51CDA4-6635-11E9-9D12-DF19F34BB12D-09356542!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi, Jeff King wrote: > The description for the "-t" option contains a sub-list of all of the > possible file status outputs. But because of the newline separating that > list from the description paragraph, asciidoc treats the sub-list > entries as a continuation of the overall options list, rather than as > children of the "-t" description. > > We could fix it by adding a "+" before the sub-list to connect it to the > rest of the "-t" text. But using a pair of "--" to delimit the block is > perhaps more readable, and may have better compatibility with > asciidoctor, as in 39a869b2f2 (Documentation/rev-list-options: wrap > --date= block with "--", 2019-03-30). > > The extra blank line comes from 5bc0e247c4 (Document ls-files -t as > semi-obsolete., 2010-07-28), but the problem actually seems older than > that. Before then, we did: > > -t:: some text... > H:: cached > M:: unmerged > etc... > > but asciidoc also treats that as one big list. So this problem seems to > have been around forever. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff King > --- > Junio: I happened to notice this while hunting for "ls-files" options > that could make your makefile de-dup patch unnecessary (but > didn't find anything). > > Todd: Just an FYI that your "--" strategy is spreading. :) Heh, cool. This is an obviously simple fix, but for good measure I checked the results with asciidoc 8.6.10 as well as asciidoctor 1.5.6 and 2.0.8. The output from each of them looks good. -- Todd