From: D. Ben Knoble Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 14:04:25 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] replay: drop rev-list formatting options from manual Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 9:19 PM Junio C Hamano wrote: > > "D. Ben Knoble" writes: > > > The rev-list options in our manuals are quite long; git-replay's manual > > is no exception. Since replay doesn't use the formatting options at all > > (it has its own output format), drop them. > > > > Signed-off-by: D. Ben Knoble > > --- > > > > Notes (benknoble/commits): > > I noticed this while reading. It took me a minute to find the > > Asciidoc reference on multiple attributes [1] since it's not used > > elsewhere in the rev-list include :) I'm not sure it needs to be > > included in the commit message, though normally I would, personally. > > > > [1]: https://docs.asciidoctor.org/asciidoc/latest/directives/ifdef-ifndef/ > > > Indeed. Not just rev-list, but ifdef:: or ifndef:: anywhere do not > check multiple attributes in existing docs. > > "ifndef::git-shortlog,git-replay[]" is rather hard to follow, as it > is unclear if they are ANDed or ORed, and it does not help to have > it with negation X-<. I guess there always is the first instance, > and we need to get used to it ;-) > > As long as the construct is understood correctly with AsciiDoc and > Asciidoctor (two renderers we depend on), it is OK, but I do agree > with you it deserves to be said in the log message that you noticed > this is the first time we use the syntax. > > Thanks. Extra sentences coming in v2 then ;) RE: AsciiDoc vs. Asciidoctor, it was a bit difficult for me to untangle https://docs.asciidoctor.org/ and https://asciidoc.org/ (which points quite a bit at the former for specs/docs). It seems that by AsciiDoc you refer to the legacy Python processor (https://github.com/asciidoc-py/asciidoc-py/), and then Asciidoctor is presumably the Ruby processor (https://github.com/asciidoctor/asciidoctor)? If I've understood all that correctly, then I have the Python version installed for building Git and it understood the syntax. Given that the Ruby version is newer, I think it should also work against the spec.