Re: [PATCH] doc: patch-id: convert to the modern synopsis style
Le 09/10/2025 à 22:53, kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com a écrit :
Show 117 quoted lines
> From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name>
>
> Convert this command documentation to the modern synopsis style based on
> similar work.[1] Concretely:
>
> • Change the Synopsis section from `verse` to a `synopsis` block which
> will automatically apply the correct formatting to various elements
> (although this Synopsis is very simple)
> • Use backticks (`) for code-like things which will also use the correct
> formatting for interior placeholders (`<orderfile>`)
> • Use backticks on options
>
> † 1: E.g.,
> • 026f2e3b (doc: convert git-log to new documentation format,
> 2025-07-07)
> • b983aaab (doc: convert git-switch manpage to new synopsis style,
> 2025-05-25)
> • 16543967 (doc: convert git-mergetool manpage to new synopsis
> style, 2025-05-25)
>
> Signed-off-by: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name>
> ---
>
> Notes (series):
> Topic name: kh/patch-id-doc-part-one
>
> Topic summary: The documentation for "git patch-id" has been converted
> to the modern "synopsis" style.
>
> Update git-patch-id(1) to the new synopsis style. This is done based on
> observing what Jean-Noël Avila has done on other documentation pages.
>
> I don’t know what high-level plans Jean-Noël and the maintainer have for
> the rewrite so I don’t know if posting this update is somehow
> inappropriate in light of that.
>
> § Notes to the maintainer[1]
>
> This depends on the topic kh/doc-patch-id-markup-fix (39969438 (doc:
> patch-id: fix accidental literal blocks, 2025-09-29) merged into
> v2.50.0 (because that’s what the topic is based on).
>
> (is there a “reference” convention for mentioning a topic + commit?)
>
> † 1: Inspired by
> • <cover.1759097191.git.me@ttaylorr.com>
> • SubmittingPatches: guidance for topic names and multi-series efforts
> • <cover.1759873165.git.me@ttaylorr.com>
>
> This is part one of a multi-series effort focusing on this
> documentation page. Technically that intent started with topic
> kh/doc-patch-id-markup-fix, but I published that before I learned
> about the idea presented in <cover.1759873165.git.me@ttaylorr.com>.
> So this gets named “part one” in the cover letter (and maybe on the
> topic name).
>
> The current plan for parts 2–5:
>
> 2. Various smaller fixups (many small patches/commits)
> 3. Mention the two config variables in git-config(1)
> 4. Make it more clear that you can feed multiple diffs to this command
> 5. An “Examples” section
>
> Why a multi-part series? It started with the idea of (1) emphasizing
> that this command can take multiple patches, and (2) making an
> Examples. But then I saw other things to fix. And they ought to go
> first... eventually I ended up with many commits or ideas.
>
> I wanted to see if this was easier to review.
>
> • Focus on uncontroversial changes first
> • Make all the series either small, simple/trivial, or both
> • Leave the changes that might spark discussion last; the ones that have
> to do with authoring new paragraphs/sections
>
> (I realize that multi-part series are probably mostly used for
> super-technical changes that take 50+ patches in total and that only
> three people on the list have the time and capacity to review at any
> given point in time.)
>
> Documentation/git-patch-id.adoc | 16 ++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-patch-id.adoc b/Documentation/git-patch-id.adoc
> index 45da0f27acd..bfbf23f49c4 100644
> --- 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
>
> SYNOPSIS
> --------
> -[verse]
> -'git patch-id' [--stable | --unstable | --verbatim]
> +[synopsis]
> +git patch-id [--stable | --unstable | --verbatim]
>
> DESCRIPTION
> -----------
> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ the same time also reasonably unique, i.e., two patches that have the same
>
> The main usecase for this command is to look for likely duplicate commits.
>
> -When dealing with 'git diff-tree' output, it takes advantage of
> +When dealing with `git diff-tree` output, it takes advantage of
> the fact that the patch is prefixed with the object name of the
> commit, and outputs two 40-byte hexadecimal strings. The first
> string is the patch ID, and the second string is the commit ID.
> @@ -30,19 +30,19 @@ This can be used to make a mapping from patch ID to commit ID.
> OPTIONS
> -------
>
> ---verbatim::
> +`--verbatim`::
> Calculate the patch-id of the input as it is given, do not strip
> any whitespace.
> +
> This is the default if patchid.verbatim is true.
We also format config names so here `patchid.verbatim`
Show 16 quoted lines
>
> ---stable::
> +`--stable`::
> Use a "stable" sum of hashes as the patch ID. With this option:
> +
> --
> - Reordering file diffs that make up a patch does not affect the ID.
> In particular, two patches produced by comparing the same two trees
> - with two different settings for "-O<orderfile>" result in the same
> + with two different settings for `-O<orderfile>` result in the same
> patch ID signature, thereby allowing the computed result to be used
> as a key to index some meta-information about the change between
> the two trees;
> @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ This is the default if patchid.verbatim is true.
> - Result is different from the value produced by git 1.9 and older
> or produced when an "unstable" hash (see --unstable below) is
here also "see `--unstable` below"
Show 9 quoted lines
> configured - even when used on a diff output taken without any use
> - of "-O<orderfile>", thereby making existing databases storing such
> + of `-O<orderfile>", thereby making existing databases storing such
> "unstable" or historical patch-ids unusable.
>
> - All whitespace within the patch is ignored and does not affect the id.
> @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ This is the default if patchid.verbatim is true.
> +
> This is the default if patchid.stable is set to true.
Show 6 quoted lines
>
> ---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
Thanks for jumping in the synopsis squad bandwagon!