git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

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

From
brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Date
May 29, 2018, 19:53 UTC
Message-ID
<20180529195353.GM652292@genre.crustytoothpaste.net>
In-Reply-To
<20180529180203.GC8868@hank.intra.tgummerer.com>
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 07:02:03PM +0100, Thomas Gummerer wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> On 05/28, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > 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.

Yes, I believe the attributes namespace is flat and substituted using the current version that's defined. I wouldn't rely extensively on that, though, so unique names are probably better.

Show 13 quoted lines
> > 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.

In AsciiDoc, footnotes use the named macro syntax. I thought it would be difficult to read to have the footnotes inline, so I chose to use an attribute to substitute them. I used numbers because we had a small number of them and the original footnotes were numbered. I was trying to make a minimal, faithful conversion.

I have no objection to named footnotes and I agree they're easier to use if we have a large number of them. I think whatever we use, we should try to make them unique, as I mentioned above.

-- 
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
Previous: Thomas GummererNext: Thomas Gummerer
Message 7 of 11 in “README: note git-security@googlegroups.com”
  1. README: note git-security@googlegroups.comThomas Gummerer, May 27, 2018
  2. Jonathan NiederMay 27, 2018
  3. 2/1 SubmittingPatches: not git-security@googlegroups.comThomas Gummerer, May 27, 2018
  4. Junio C HamanoMay 28, 2018
  5. Thomas GummererMay 29, 2018
  6. Thomas GummererMay 29, 2018
  7. brian m. carlsonMay 29, 2018
  8. 1/2 SubmittingPatches: replace numbered attributes with namesThomas Gummerer, May 30, 2018
  9. 2/2 note git-security@googlegroups.com in more placesThomas Gummerer, May 30, 2018
  10. brian m. carlsonMay 30, 2018
  11. Thomas GummererMay 31, 2018

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.