From: Samuel GROOT Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 16:00:26 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Formatting variables in the documentation Message-ID: 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: > 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.