From: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 22:18:06 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation typo.
Message-ID: <20070606221806.GA23830@artemis>
In-Reply-To: <7v4plkzsuj.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 02:16:36PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> writes:
> 
> > From: Pierre Habouzit <pierre.habouzit@m4x.org>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt |    2 +-
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt b/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt
> > index 8d4e950..5bcdbc8 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt
> > @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
> >  
> >  <refspec>::
> >  	The canonical format of a <refspec> parameter is
> > -	`+?<src>:<dst>`; that is, an optional plus `+`, followed
> > +	`\+?<src>:<dst>`; that is, an optional plus `+`, followed
> >  	by the source ref, followed by a colon `:`, followed by
> >  	the destination ref.
> >  +
> 
> Not really.  I suspect you are using AsciiDoc 8?

  indeed ...

> Your patch does make AsciiDoc 8 keep '+' in the HTML output, but
> manual page output gets an extra backslash, so it is not really
> an improvement.

  Not for me, using asciidoc 8.2.1 on debian. It was because the manpage
was missing a '+' that I actually wrote this patch, as it was really
akward.

> Unfortunately our documentation pages were written with AsciiDoc
> 7, and are not AsciiDoc 8 compatible.
> 
> With -aasciidoc7compatible, AsciiDoc 8 is _supposed_ to behave
> compatibly, but in reality it does not format our documentation
> correctly.  It certainly is possible that AsciiDoc 7 "happens to
> work" with our documentation pages, and maybe the way we abuse
> mark-ups can be argued the bug in _our_ documentation, but
> nobody on our end worked on finding a satisfactory solution to
> make our documentation format correctly with _both_ versions of
> AsciiDoc yet.
> 
> I wrote about the differences between AsciiDoc 7, and AsciiDoc 8
> with the "compatiblity" I found a few weeks ago on this list;
> the most problematic was that 'asciidoc -aasciidoc7compatible'
> loses carets in our description where they matter X-<.  The list
> archive may know more about the details,

  Okay, I see, sorry for the noise then.

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org