Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Re: user-manual: general improvements

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: May 21, 2009, 04:15 UTC
Message-ID: <20090521041529.GD8091@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vvdnvtf2n.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 06:33:36PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> >> http://people.freedesktop.org/~felipec/git/user-manual-general-improvements/
> >
> > Thank you very much Felipe to take the time to upload the patches there.
> > I already have a copy there and I'll look at it soon.
> 
> Has anybody looked at this?  It's a bit large-ish and touches all over the
> place, so I am finding it a bit hard to concentrate on it myself really
> nitpicking, but from the cursory look after formatting the result looked
> Ok.

I started to, but the first commit message is lacking something that I think would make reviewing much simpler: what are the general classes of changes that are being made?

I see some doublequotes becoming backticks, and some becoming single quotes. And some becoming tex-quotes (``...''), and even some becoming doublequotes _with_ single quotes. It would be easier to verify that they are doing the right thing if the commit message briefly described the rules it followed for changing each one. I think they are something like:

  - tex-quotes if it was really a prose-style quotation

  - backticks (causing monospace) for branch names, commands, etc in
    prose

but that leaves me confused. Some things which I thought should be in monospace backticks are in single-quotes (causing emphasis). Like 'master' or 'linux-2.6'. And some things are emphasized and in double quotes in the prose, like '"o"' or '"branch A"'. What is the rule to decide which text should have visible doublequotes but also be emphasized, as opposed to just having double-quotes or just being emphasized?

Maybe this was even discussed earlier in the thread (I didn't go back to look), but it should definitely be part of the commit message.

-Peff