Re: [PATCH] Fix break in git-rev-list.txt
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:43:30
Quy Tonthat [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk
diff --git a/Documentation/git-rev-list.txt b/Documentation/git-rev-list.txt index cbbc234..a0c611e 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-rev-list.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-rev-list.txt@@ -298,8 +298,8 @@ used in the output. When the starting commit is specified as 'commit@{now}', output also uses 'commit@\{timestamp}' notation instead. Under '\--pretty=oneline', the commit message is prefixed with this information on the same line. -+ -Cannot be combined with --reverse. + +Cannot be combined with '\--reverse'.
Hmph. Interesting. The text around this is:
-g, --wark-reflogs::
Indented first paragraph...
+
With '\--pretty' fromat ... second paragraph ...
prefixed with this information on the same line.
+
Cannot be combined with --reverse.
And its formatted form looks like either (without your patch):
<listitem>
<simpara>
Indented first paragraph...
With <emphasis>--pretty</emphasis> format ...
</simpara>
<simpara>Cannot be combined with --reverse.</simpara>
</listitem>
or (with):
<listitem>
<simpara>
Indented first paragraph...
With <emphasis>--pretty</emphasis> format ...
Cannot be combined with --reverse.
</simpara>
</listitem>
So it looks as if the only place that needs the ugly '+'
continuation marker is between the first and the second
paragraph. And it also appears that the manpage backend does
not pay attention to the paragraph break there (HTML backend
places a <br /> before "With <em>--pretty</em>").
Is it just me, or the more we look at it, everybody doubts if
AsciiDoc was such a good choice?
It was a major plus that the input format is mostly readable as
straight text, but this was one of the sore points in our
formatting. In the description part of a definition list, we
indent the first paragraph but append the second paragraph and
later with '+' without indenting (we would rather keep the
second and subsequent paragraphs aligned with the first one).
However, it appears that the definition has to be a single
paragraph and not any longer in such a list anyway.
Hmmmm.
In any case, I'd appreciate feedbacks from people who recently
reported formatting breakages on this patch.