From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [RFT] Format our Documentation/ with both AsciiDoc 7 & 8 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:52:09 -0700 Message-ID: <7vy7ik7rvq.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.pobox.com> References: <11810823561507-git-send-email-madcoder@debian.org> <7vfy4t915f.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.pobox.com> <20070615080935.GB28554@artemis.intersec.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Stefan Richter To: Pierre Habouzit X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jun 16 00:52:14 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HzKeL-0000Di-OJ for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:52:14 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756203AbXFOWwM (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:52:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756007AbXFOWwL (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:52:11 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao106.cox.net ([68.230.241.40]:58908 "EHLO fed1rmmtao106.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755533AbXFOWwK (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:52:10 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao106.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20070615225210.CKAU3993.fed1rmmtao106.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:52:10 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.pobox.com ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id Bys91X00E1kojtg0000000; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:52:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070615080935.GB28554@artemis.intersec.eu> (Pierre Habouzit's message of "Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:09:35 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Pierre Habouzit writes: > sadly, it does not fixes the issue I reported with git-pull.1 (e.g.) > that reads: > > > The canonical format of a parameter is ?:; that > > whereas it should be: > > > The canonical format of a parameter is +?:; that That is very unexpected, especially as your e-mail address is in debian.org. * My local test and build usually is done with AsciiDoc 7.1.2 that is shipped with Debian, without any local modifications. The part you quoted is formatted like this (I indented for e-mail inclusion and line-wrapped below): .PP .RS 3n The canonical format of a parameter is +?:; that is, an optional plus +, followed by the source ref, followed by a colon :, followed by the destination ref. This is the same with or without the patch we are discussing. * I updated my notebook that runs Debian with AsciiDoc 8.2.1 and tested with the patch. The formatted result matches the above. * I tried the above with a hand-installed AsciiDoc 8.2.1 from the tarball distribution. Again, the formatted result of the quoted part matches. * The preformatted manual pages on man branch in git.git are generated on a k.org machine that runs AsciiDoc 7.0.2 on FC5. The version before the patch is formatted like this: .TP The canonical format of a parameter is +?:; that is, an optional plus +, followed by the source ref, followed by a colon :, followed by the destination ref. I haven't had a chance to test how it comes out with the patch, but because the only difference under AsciiDoc 7 is the definition of {caret} macro, I do not expect any change in the quoted area. In other words, there is no breakage like you are observing in the original (nor updated) version with any of the platforms and AsciiDoc versions I had handy to test. There is something different with the version of AsciiDoc you are using, but I cannot tell what that is.