Re: [PATCH] docs: avoid a footnote, some related rewordings and improvements (was: Re: [Automake-commit] [SCM] GNU Automake branch, maint, updated. v1.11-393-gc1040a7)

2011-06-28 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On Monday 27 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 03:35:23PM CEST: On Monday 27 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: +@c The following example should be covered by the test case +@c 'autodist-config-headers.test'. @c The following

Re: [PATCH] docs: avoid a footnote, some related rewordings and improvements (was: Re: [Automake-commit] [SCM] GNU Automake branch, maint, updated. v1.11-393-gc1040a7)

2011-06-28 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 08:24:13AM CEST: On Monday 27 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Sure. Well, do they use some format already? Well, there are only two of them, and both follows this format: @c The test case for the setup described here is @c

Re: [PATCH] docs: avoid a footnote, some related rewordings and improvements (was: Re: [Automake-commit] [SCM] GNU Automake branch, maint, updated. v1.11-393-gc1040a7)

2011-06-27 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:33:41PM CEST: On Thursday 23 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Footnotes are hard to read and distract the flow, esp. in an info file. Sorry, I never use info(1) directly (never bothered to learn it actually); Actually, I had been

Re: [PATCH] docs: avoid a footnote, some related rewordings and improvements (was: Re: [Automake-commit] [SCM] GNU Automake branch, maint, updated. v1.11-393-gc1040a7)

2011-06-27 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 03:35:23PM CEST: On Monday 27 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: +@c The following example should be covered by the test case +@c 'autodist-config-headers.test'. @c The following example is covered by autodist-config-headers.test.