Re: [RFT] Format our Documentation/ with both AsciiDoc 7 & 8

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jun 15, 2007, 22:52 UTC
Message-ID: <7vy7ik7rvq.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070615080935.GB28554@artemis.intersec.eu>

Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> writes:

Show 10 quoted lines

>   sadly, it does not fixes the issue I reported with git-pull.1 (e.g.)
> that reads:
>
>    <refspec>
>        The canonical format of a <refspec> parameter is ?<src>:<dst>; that
>
> whereas it should be:
>
>    <refspec>
>        The canonical format of a <refspec> parameter is +?<src>:<dst>; that

That is very unexpected, especially as your e-mail address is in debian.org.

 * My local test and build usually is done with AsciiDoc 7.1.2
   that is shipped with Debian, without any local modifications.
   The part you quoted is formatted like this (I indented for
   e-mail inclusion and line-wrapped below):

    .PP
    <refspec>
    .RS 3n

    The canonical format of a <refspec> parameter is +?<src>:<dst>;
    that is, an optional plus +, followed by the source ref,
    followed by a colon :, followed by the destination ref.

   This is the same with or without the patch we are
   discussing.

 * I updated my notebook that runs Debian with AsciiDoc 8.2.1
   and tested with the patch.  The formatted result matches the
   above.

 * I tried the above with a hand-installed AsciiDoc 8.2.1 from
   the tarball distribution.  Again, the formatted result of the
   quoted part matches.

 * The preformatted manual pages on man branch in git.git are
   generated on a k.org machine that runs AsciiDoc 7.0.2 on
   FC5.  The version before the patch is formatted like this:

    .TP
    <refspec>
    The canonical format of a <refspec> parameter is +?<src>:<dst>;
    that is, an optional plus +, followed by the source ref,
    followed by a colon :, followed by the destination ref.

   I haven't had a chance to test how it comes out with the
   patch, but because the only difference under AsciiDoc 7 is
   the definition of {caret} macro, I do not expect any change
   in the quoted area.

In other words, there is no breakage like you are observing in the original (nor updated) version with any of the platforms and AsciiDoc versions I had handy to test. There is something different with the version of AsciiDoc you are using, but I cannot tell what that is.