From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 20:46:48 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] doc: patch-id: convert to the modern synopsis style
Message-ID: <c9314e08-e0eb-4de4-8f34-a6b4de69e28f@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cSQB0HbhY2L1Y4mkbaCMiZTH72AtQ+qRg=Z0U9_ggkcug@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Oct 13, 2025, at 18:53, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 12:28 PM <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> wrote:
>> Convert this command documentation to the modern synopsis style based on
>> similar work.[1] Concretely: [...]
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-patch-id.adoc b/Documentation/git-patch-id.adoc
>> @@ -7,8 +7,8 @@ git-patch-id - Compute unique ID for a patch
>> ---unstable::
>> +`--unstable`::
>>         Use an "unstable" hash as the patch ID. With this option,
>>         the result produced is compatible with the patch-id value produced
>>         by git 1.9 and older and whitespace is ignored.  Users with pre-existing
>
> Is the mix of "patch ID" and "patch-id" intentional? If so, should
> "patch-id" be wrapped in backticks?

I originally assumed that “patch-id” here meant “patch ID` but now I’m
not sure (what was intended).

The way I read it then made me change all of these “patch-id” to “patch
ID” for consistency.  That’s a future change/topic.