From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Anton Mitterer Subject: Re: polishing up mdadm manpages: mdassemble(8), mdmon(8) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:57:29 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20110310161827.6df62c7a@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110310161827.6df62c7a@notabene.brown> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: NeilBrown Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:18:27 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > Of course I could create the patch my - it looks like you > start from the verison in the 3.2 release - correct? Yes. > Being consistent is good, but using \fB \fI etc is not. > Convention (as I understand it) prefers .B .I etc. Is this convention? I've seen many manpages using it,.. and it seems to be part of the standard format? > There are a variety of programs around which convert man pages to > other formats and I trust the ".B" tags to be handled more reliably. Well if they don't handle \f* they should be fixed IMHO.... Anyway,.. the reason for me arguing so strong agains .B .I etc. is that it really makes the (raw) manpage nearly unreadable/unmaintainable IMHO. Especially polishing up everything is made rather impossible so (IMHO)... so do you insist on this?. > Maybe... The ".pid" and ".sock" are file name extensions. If your change > were made (which quite possibly improves readability) it might then me > necessary to say something explicit about extensions. Well that's up to you then,.. I don't have enough knowledge about the containers to do that =) Cheers, Chris.