Re: [PATCH 2/1] SubmittingPatches: not git-security@googlegroups.com

> On 05/28, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> writes:
> > 
> > > Yeah sorry, that's what I meant.
> > > https://public-inbox.org/git/20180308150820.22588-1-avarab@gmail.com/
> > > is the reference I meant to put there.
> > >
> > > How about something like the below?  This is tested with asciidoc
> > > 8.6.10 and asciidoctor 1.5.6.2.  I'm also happy to squash the two
> > > patches into one if that's preferred.
> > >
> > 
> > If the discussion in the proposed log message needs to be updated
> > anyway, it is a good opportunity to make them into a single patch,
> > as they share exactly the same objective.
> 
> This was mostly a clarification of the note I added after the '---',
> but I'm happy to just make this one patch either way.
> 
> > This is a tangent, but the use of footnote below looks a but
> > curious.  How would {1} reference pick which :1: to use?  The
> > closest preceding one?
> 
> Tbh I didn't look at the docs for doing this, but just used the same
> syntax as we're already using and tried it with both asciidoc and
> asciidoctor.  And yes it seems like it always picks the preceeding
> one.
> 
> > As this appears on a page that already has other footnotes attached
> > to an adjacent paragraph, I am wondering if they should be made into
> > a part of the same numbering sequence.
> 
> I have now actually looked at the docs, and this numbering has nothing
> to do with the footnote format, but rather is used to substitute the
> attribute that's specified in the curly braces with the text that's
> after :<attribute>: [1].  This initially confused me a bit.  Maybe it
> would be nicer to give the attributes names instead of just numbers?
> As we keep adding footnotes, that would be less likely to produce
> conflicts between the different attributes I think.
> 
> I'm also adding brian to the cc list, as he first converted this to
> AsciiDoc for opinions.