In asciidoc 7, backticks like `foo` produced a typographic
effect, but did not otherwise affect the syntax. In asciidoc
8, backticks introduce an "inline literal" inside which markup
is not interpreted. To keep compatibility with existing
documents, asciidoc 8 has a "no-inline-literal" attribute to
keep the old behavior. We enabled this so that the
documentation could be built on either version.
It has been several years now, and asciidoc 7 is no longer
in wide use. We can now decide whether or not we want
inline literals on their own merits, which are:
1. The source is much easier to read when the literal
contains punctuation. You can use `master~1` instead
of `master{tilde}1`.
2. They are less error-prone. Because of point (1), we
tend to make mistakes and forget the extra layer of
quoting.
This patch removes the no-inline-literal attribute from the
Makefile and converts every use of backticks in the
documentation to an inline literal (they must be cleaned up,
or the example above would literally show "{tilde}" in the
output).
Problematic sites were found by grepping for '`.*[{\\]' and
examined and fixed manually. The results were then verified
by comparing the output of "html2text" on the set of
generated html pages. Doing so revealed that in addition to
making the source more readable, this patch fixes several
formatting bugs:
- HTML rendering used the ellipsis character instead of
literal "..." in code examples (like "git log A...B")
- some code examples used the right-arrow character
instead of '->' because they failed to quote
- api-config.txt did not quote tilde, and the resulting
HTML contained a bogus snippet like:
<tt><sub></tt> foo <tt></sub>bar</tt>
which caused some parsers to choke and omit whole
sections of the page.
- git-commit.txt confused ``foo`` (backticks inside a
literal) with ``foo'' (matched double-quotes)
- mentions of `A U Thor <author@example.com>` used to
erroneously auto-generate a mailto footnote for
author@example.com
- the description of --word-diff=plain incorrectly showed
the output as "[-removed-] and {added}", not "{+added+}".
- using "prime" notation like:
commit `C` and its replacement `C'`
confused asciidoc into thinking that everything between
the first backtick and the final apostrophe were meant
to be inside matched quotes
- asciidoc got confused by the escaping of some of our
asterisks. In particular,
`credential.\*` and `credential.<url>.\*`
properly escaped the asterisk in the first case, but
literally passed through the backslash in the second
case.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The SYNOPSIS sections of most commands that span several lines already
use [verse] to retain line breaks. Most commands that don't span
several lines seem not to use [verse]. In the HTML output, [verse]
does not only preserve line breaks, but also makes the section
indented, which causes a slight inconsistency between commands that
use [verse] and those that don't. Use [verse] in all SYNOPSIS sections
for consistency.
Also remove the blank lines from git-fetch.txt and git-rebase.txt to
align with the other man pages. In the case of git-rebase.txt, which
already uses [verse], the blank line makes the [verse] not apply to
the last line, so removing the blank line also makes the formatting
within the document more consistent.
While at it, add single quotes to 'git cvsimport' for consistency with
other commands.
Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk <martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The documentation was quite inconsistent when spelling 'git cmd' if it
only refers to the program, not to some specific invocation syntax:
both 'git-cmd' and 'git cmd' spellings exist.
The current trend goes towards dashless forms, and there is precedent
in 647ac70 (git-svn.txt: stop using dash-form of commands.,
2009-07-07) to actively eliminate the dashed variants.
Replace 'git-cmd' with 'git cmd' throughout, except where git-shell,
git-cvsserver, git-upload-pack, git-receive-pack, and
git-upload-archive are concerned, because those really live in the
$PATH.
The current man page does a reasonable job at describing branch management
during the development process, but it does not contain any guidance as to
how the branches are affected by releases.
Add a basic introduction to the branch management undertaken during a
git.git release, so that a reader may gain some insight into how the
integration, maintenance, and topic branches are affected during the
release transition, and is thus able to better design the process for their
own project.
Other release activities such as reviews, testing, and creating
distributions are currently out of scope.
Signed-off-by: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com>
Acked-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This attempts to make a manpage about workflows that is both handy to
point people at it and as a beginner's introduction.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
