Hi Branden, On 2026-07-17T12:15:09-0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Hi Alex, > > At 2026-07-17T14:10:23+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > On 2026-07-16T13:19:20-0400, Douglas McIlroy wrote: > > > > I think there should be a separation between an introduction to > > > > the entire system (maybe this could be intro(0)), and an > > > > introduction to the first section of the manual (intro(1)). > > > > > > I agree. In the early days, at least, there was such a section, > > > called "getting started". I like the idea of calling it intro(0). > > > The very name suggests that there are more intro(.) pages. Elegant! > > > > Thanks! I've done the split already. > > > > commit 214f536963b0a108abc54b336d8ac21b4c9f1c7f > > Author: Alejandro Colomar > > Date: 2026-07-17 14:05:19 +0200 > > > > man/man?/intro.[01]: Split part of intro(1) into a new intro(0) > > > > Let's keep intro(1) for introducing just the man1 section, > > and move the more general introduction of the entire manual > > to a new intro(0). > > > > Acked-by: Douglas McIlroy > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar > > I wonder if James K. Lowden's proposed "man-intro" document might be > worth a second look at this time. Would you mind bouncing the email to me? (If you have it.) > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2021-05/msg00032.html The thing is, I hate big-bang replacements. I'd like to see small patches that can be reviewed on their own. If you would like to send the most valuable pieces of it patch by patch, I'd like to have a look at them. Considering a full replacement of a manual page in a single commit is something I don't enjoy. Also, deciding on my own is boring and prone to mistakes. I'd prefer a long discussion where we iterate over versions of patches. Have a lovely day! Alex > > Regards, > Branden --