From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Re: user-manual: general improvements Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 22:18:01 -0700 Message-ID: <7viqjvdofq.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1241650416-12224-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <20090507072326.GA13123@vidovic> <7veiv0cvdt.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090508042814.GA30031@vidovic> <94a0d4530905131430q2250a43ei692265c3f32b5715@mail.gmail.com> <20090514160609.GA12910@vidovic> <7vvdnvtf2n.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090521041529.GD8091@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Nicolas Sebrecht , Felipe Contreras , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 21 07:18:27 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 1M70fh-0007mx-Kh for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 21 May 2009 07:18:26 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751143AbZEUFSL (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2009 01:18:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750847AbZEUFSL (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2009 01:18:11 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao103.cox.net ([68.230.241.43]:35313 "EHLO fed1rmmtao103.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750853AbZEUFSL (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2009 01:18:11 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo03.cox.net ([70.169.32.75]) by fed1rmmtao103.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090521051800.VIVL2915.fed1rmmtao103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo03.cox.net>; Thu, 21 May 2009 01:18:00 -0400 Received: from localhost ([68.225.240.211]) by fed1rmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id u5J11b00G4aMwMQ045J1Tg; Thu, 21 May 2009 01:18:01 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=YDhzBoFtm8wA:10 a=AYFEWzs_8uQA:10 a=PKzvZo6CAAAA:8 a=e5mUnYsNAAAA:8 a=PT7kt1FLhZEvE2uRGRgA:9 a=ZdoAREB6MMi4u3apyXYA:7 a=wXKOXeNJnWDSTW657DBCDhBZbaEA:4 a=OdWmie4EkE0A:10 X-CM-Score: 0.00 In-Reply-To: <20090521041529.GD8091@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu\, 21 May 2009 00\:15\:29 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King writes: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 06:33:36PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> >> http://people.freedesktop.org/~felipec/git/user-manual-general-improvements/ >> > >> > Thank you very much Felipe to take the time to upload the patches there. >> > I already have a copy there and I'll look at it soon. >> >> Has anybody looked at this? It's a bit large-ish and touches all over the >> place, so I am finding it a bit hard to concentrate on it myself really >> nitpicking, but from the cursory look after formatting the result looked >> Ok. > > I started to, but the first commit message is lacking something that I > think would make reviewing much simpler: what are the general classes of > changes that are being made? > > I see some doublequotes becoming backticks, and some becoming single > quotes. And some becoming tex-quotes (``...''), and even some becoming > doublequotes _with_ single quotes. It would be easier to verify that > they are doing the right thing if the commit message briefly described > the rules it followed for changing each one. I think they are something > like: > > - tex-quotes if it was really a prose-style quotation > > - backticks (causing monospace) for branch names, commands, etc in > prose > > but that leaves me confused. Some things which I thought should be in > monospace backticks are in single-quotes (causing emphasis). Like > 'master' or 'linux-2.6'. And some things are emphasized and in double > quotes in the prose, like '"o"' or '"branch A"'. What is the rule to > decide which text should have visible doublequotes but also be > emphasized, as opposed to just having double-quotes or just being > emphasized? > > Maybe this was even discussed earlier in the thread (I didn't go back to > look), but it should definitely be part of the commit message. I do not think there was any discussion, as the original patch never made to the list. And I realize that the difficulty I had while reading this was exactly what you described here. Thanks for saying it very clearly.