From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: .ft tag in man Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:35:33 -0800 Message-ID: <7veiz678m2.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20090114052126.GA6849@b2j> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git To: bill lam X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 14 06:37:28 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LMyRT-0006xX-Ri for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:37:28 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759545AbZANFfr (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:35:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759421AbZANFfo (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:35:44 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:47405 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759444AbZANFfm (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:35:42 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F28881C6DB; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:35:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C2861C6F0; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:35:36 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20090114052126.GA6849@b2j> (bill lam's message of "Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:21:26 +0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2D8B764E-E1FD-11DD-96A2-2E3B113D384A-77302942!a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: bill lam writes: > The diagram in man contain some .ft tag, eg inside > PAGE=less git help rebase > it contains > > .ft C > A---B---C topic > / > D---E---F---G master > .ft No, I do not see that neither on my Debian nor on k.org's FC 9. Perhaps you are using different version of asciidoc/docbook/xmlto toolchain? I think we added compatibility definitions in our Makefile to deal with differences between AsciiDoc 7 vs 8, but I do not recall offhand what misformatting one would get if it is set incorrectly..