Order of sections VERSIONS, ATTRIBUTES, STANDARDS, and HISTORY

Order of sections VERSIONS, ATTRIBUTES, STANDARDS, and HISTORY

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 835 bytes --]

Hi,

man-pages(7) has the following order:

              NAME
              ...
              VERSIONS         [Normally only in Sections 2, 3]
              ATTRIBUTES       [Normally only in Sections 2, 3]
              STANDARDS
              ...
              SEE ALSO

There's no HISTORY, which I'm going to add, right after STANDARDS,
since it's very related.  I'm not convinced by attributes being
between VERSIONS and STANDARDS, since those two are also very related
but have nothing in common with ATTRIBUTES.

I propose changing to the following order:

    ATTRIBUTES, VERSIONS (moved), STANDARDS, HISTORY (new).

So that the three related sections are together.  Any opinions?

Thanks,
Alex

-- 
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
GPG key fingerprint: A9348594CE31283A826FBDD8D57633D441E25BB5

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Order of sections VERSIONS, ATTRIBUTES, STANDARDS, and HISTORY

[Oskari Pirhonen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 925 bytes --]

Hi, 

On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 14:14:21 +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> man-pages(7) has the following order:
> 
>               NAME
>               ...
>               VERSIONS         [Normally only in Sections 2, 3]
>               ATTRIBUTES       [Normally only in Sections 2, 3]
>               STANDARDS
>               ...
>               SEE ALSO
> 
> There's no HISTORY, which I'm going to add, right after STANDARDS,
> since it's very related.  I'm not convinced by attributes being
> between VERSIONS and STANDARDS, since those two are also very related
> but have nothing in common with ATTRIBUTES.
> 
> I propose changing to the following order:
> 
>     ATTRIBUTES, VERSIONS (moved), STANDARDS, HISTORY (new).
> 
> So that the three related sections are together.  Any opinions?
> 

LGTM based on the revised descriptions in the patch in your other
message.

- Oskari

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]