Re: [RFC/PATCH] Formatting variables in the documentation
- From
- Samuel GROOT <samuel.groot@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr>
- Date
- May 23, 2016, 16:00 UTC
- Message-ID
- <b06231ac-b100-2565-3bf7-99f268014788@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr>
- In-Reply-To
- <20160518181500.GD5796@sigill.intra.peff.net>
Some people have suggested to standardize documentation's formatting to make it more consistent.
[1] 2015-04-29 20:13:53 GMT, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Interesting. What I happen to use when populating the git-manpages > repository would have wider impact to the users, as I hear that some > (or many) distros just package whatever I have there. I do not mind > enabling it on my end if that gives us more readable rendition.
[2] On 2015-04-29 20:32:47, Jeff King wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> I think it's probably fine and a positive change, but one never knows. I > guess distros don't package what you ship until you actually tag a > release, so it would be OK to start doing so during a cycle to shake out > any problems (and in fact preferable, as anybody who follows "master" > using "make install-man-quick" would get it early and be able to make a > report). > > If we are doing that, it would make sense to flip MAN_BOLD_LITERAL on by > default during that same cycle, so we could get reports from people who > build the manpages from source.
[3] On 2015-11-13 05:45:05, Jeff King wrote:
> If we want to move to backticks, we probably want to also turn on > MAN_BOLD_LITERAL by default, or it's a step backwards for some folks.
The question is about flipping MAN_BOLD_LITERAL by default or not.
Since 2.8.3 was out recently, we could flip MAN_BOLD_LITERAL on by default for this cycle to shake out problems as Jeff King suggested [2].
Another option could be testing if the system does support bold literal and flipping it on or off accordingly, but I don't know exactly where that could be done.