Rendering back-ticks in plaintext docs (was Re: [PATCH] git-rebase.txt: use back-ticks consistently)
- From
Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com>
- Date
- Jun 28, 2022, 13:20 UTC
- Message-ID
- <a01c1ff7-74a7-b32f-1a1e-a8f2e840ae31@github.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <220628.86k091f5fy.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>
On 6/28/2022 6:22 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
> > On Mon, Jun 27 2022, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: > >> From: Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com> > > This looks 99% good, but...
Show 7 quoted lines
>> 3. Focus on the edits that most-recently edited these lines. Doing some >> scripting, I was able to construct this date-sorted list of previous >> edits (by diffing the git blame output before and after this >> change). The most-recent changes before this are: > > I think this is fine, but I want to recommend doc-diff in your toolkit, > e.g.:
Thanks for the recommendation!
Show 19 quoted lines
> $ Documentation/doc-diff HEAD~ HEAD -- -U0|cat > diff --git a/e4a4b31577c7419497ac30cebe30d755b97752c5/home/avar/share/man/man1/git-rebase.1 b/e37244faa0a730bb930dac4e10d8eed4af682a5d/home/avar/share/man/man1/git-rebase.1 > index 91ccda823b2..41dfbee38a4 100644 > --- a/e4a4b31577c7419497ac30cebe30d755b97752c5/home/avar/share/man/man1/git-rebase.1 > +++ b/e37244faa0a730bb930dac4e10d8eed4af682a5d/home/avar/share/man/man1/git-rebase.1 > @@ -489,2 +489,2 @@ OPTIONS > - Append "exec <cmd>" after each line creating a commit in the final > - history. <cmd> will be interpreted as one or more shell commands. > + Append exec <cmd> after each line creating a commit in the final > + history. <cmd> will be interpreted as one or more shell commands. > @@ -502 +502 @@ OPTIONS > - If --autosquash is used, "exec" lines will not be appended for the > + If --autosquash is used, exec lines will not be appended for the > @@ -880 +880 @@ NOTES > - When the git-rebase command is run, it will first execute a > + When the git rebase command is run, it will first execute a > > I see Phillip spotted some of this already, but the "exec" change here > looks unwanted, i.e. let's use double quotes there.
This is definitely an issue where I was looking at the HTML formatted output, which respects back-ticks. Thanks for pointing out that the text docs just ignore back-ticks. This seems problematic, in my opinion.
Is it possible to update our doc formatting to convert back-ticks into something like single quotes? That would help these plain-text documents point out these places where exact strings are very important.
I also have no idea where to look to make such a change, and it would be very wide-ranging. I just think that the plaintext docs are currently a lossy medium and we should work to improve that.
Thanks, -Stolee