Re: [RFC/PATCH] Formatting variables in the documentation

2016-05-26 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jeff King writes: > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 09:18:17AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> > 1. Somebody produces a patch flipping the default. The patch is >> > trivial, but the commit message should tell why, and try to dig up >> > any possible problems we might see (e.g., why wasn't

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Formatting variables in the documentation

2016-05-26 Thread Jeff King
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 09:37:19AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> There was no particular "caveat" raised there to recommend against > >> using this on particular versions of tools or platforms. It was > >> inertia that has kept the new optional feature "optional". > > > > Thanks for digging.

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Formatting variables in the documentation

2016-05-26 Thread Jeff King
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 09:18:17AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > 1. Somebody produces a patch flipping the default. The patch is > > trivial, but the commit message should tell why, and try to dig up > > any possible problems we might see (e.g., why wasn't this the > > default?

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Formatting variables in the documentation

2016-05-26 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jeff King writes: > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 07:57:43PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote: > >> Samuel GROOT writes: >> >> > 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]. >> >> 2.8.3 was a bufix rele

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Formatting variables in the documentation

2016-05-25 Thread Jeff King
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 07:57:43PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Samuel GROOT writes: > > > 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]. > > 2.8.3 was a bufix release, and flipping a controvers

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Formatting variables in the documentation

2016-05-23 Thread Matthieu Moy
Samuel GROOT writes: > 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]. 2.8.3 was a bufix release, and flipping a controversial flag should clearly not be done on a bugfix release. So, in this context,

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Formatting variables in the documentation

2016-05-23 Thread Samuel GROOT
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)

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Formatting variables in the documentation

2016-05-18 Thread Jeff King
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 05:58:29PM +0200, Tom Russello wrote: > There is no agreement on this topic (the CodingGuidelines does not > mention it), it would be better if everyone follows the same rule: put > each environment variable in monospace style and write this rule in > the guide. > > It is

[RFC/PATCH] Formatting variables in the documentation

2016-05-18 Thread Tom Russello
Put each environment variable in the same format for more consistency. Currently, in Documentation/git-config.txt GIT_CONFIG (l.138) has no particular style whereas in Documentation/config.txt GIT_PROXY_COMMAND has italic style ('GIT_PROXY_COMMAND' - l.437) and GIT_EDITOR is monospaced (`GIT_EDITOR