Re: What's in git.git (Sep 2008, #02; Wed, 10)

From: Michael J Gruber <michaeljgruber+gmane@fastmail.fm>
Date: Sep 11, 2008, 09:09 UTC
Message-ID: <48C8E061.5030904@fastmail.fm>
In-Reply-To: <7viqt3tk8b.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 11.09.2008 05:49:

Show 7 quoted lines

> There are still a few topics that are meant for 'maint' cooking in higher
> stages; we will have 1.6.0.2 after they are merged down.
> 
> On the 'master' front, it looks like 1.6.1 will not have anything
> particularly big like 1.6.0 did.  Other than many s/git-foo/git foo/
> updates in tests (finished -- the documentation needs to go through the
> same process), there are many small bells and whistles enhancements, but

Was there some final consensus on how to undashify the man pages? There is still the issue of keeping man viewers working which detect links from man page text like git-commit(1). Within a man page context forms like that are natural and should not be confusing (assuming man users know man), but for the html version it's unnatural. In fact, even the section numbers look unnatural on the html version (pretending to be a non-man-unaware html "customer"); also, the html doc is not split into subdirs by section.

I think the cleanest approach would consist in introducing another linkgit macro (for everything linkgit:git-) which ouputs dashed resp. dashless forms for docbook (i.e. man) resp. html targets. I'll cook up a POC if noone keeps me from doing so ;)

Michael

P.S.: There are also dashes to be removed in the text (non-link) of the doc, of course. But this doesn't pose any technical hurdles.