Many examples of git command invocation are given in asciidoc listing
blocks, which makes them monospaced and avoids further interpretation of
special characters. Some manpages make a list of examples, like:
git foo::
Run git foo.
git foo -q::
Use the "-q" option.
to quickly show many variants. However, they can sometimes be hard to
read, because they are shown in a proportional-width font (so, for
example, seeing the difference between "-- foo" and "--foo" can be
difficult).
This patch puts all such examples into backticks, which gives the
equivalent formatting to a listing block (i.e., monospaced and without
character interpretation).
As a bonus, this also fixes an example in the git-push manpage, in which
"git push origin :::" was accidentally considered a newly-indented list,
and not a list item with "git push origin :" in it.
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 point of these sections is generally to:
1. Give credit where it is due.
2. Give the reader an idea of where to ask questions or
file bug reports.
But they don't do a good job of either case. For (1), they
are out of date and incomplete. A much more accurate answer
can be gotten through shortlog or blame. For (2), the
correct contact point is generally git@vger, and even if you
wanted to cc the contact point, the out-of-date and
incomplete fields mean you're likely sending to somebody
useless.
So let's drop the fields entirely from all manpages except
git(1) itself. We already point people to the mailing list
for bug reports there, and we can update the Authors section
to give credit to the major contributors and point to
shortlog and blame for more information.
Each page has a "This is part of git" footer, so people can
follow that to the main git manpage.
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
$PATH.
Add information on new git-gui and gitk command-line options,
configuration variables, and the encoding attribute.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Gavrilov <angavrilov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
I think that some of these uses of italics were meant to be
rendered in quotation marks, anyway.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@uchicago.edu>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The name `gitk` is sometimes meant to be entered at the command
prompt, but most uses are just referring to the program with that
name (not the incantation to start it).
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@uchicago.edu>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The names of git commands are not meant to be entered at the
commandline; they are just names. So we render them in italics,
as is usual for command names in manpages.
Using
doit () {
perl -e 'for (<>) { s/\`(git-[^\`.]*)\`/'\''\1'\''/g; print }'
}
for i in git*.txt config.txt diff*.txt blame*.txt fetch*.txt i18n.txt \
merge*.txt pretty*.txt pull*.txt rev*.txt urls*.txt
do
doit <"$i" >"$i+" && mv "$i+" "$i"
done
git diff
.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@uchicago.edu>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Following what appears to be the predominant style, format
names of commands and commandlines both as `teletype text`.
While we're at it, add articles ("a" and "the") in some
places, italicize the name of the command in the manual page
synopsis line, and add a comma or two where it seems appropriate.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@uchicago.edu>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
As the "git" man page describes the "git" command at the end-user
level, it seems better to move it to man section 1.
Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Between AsciiDoc 8.2.2 and 8.2.3, the following change was made to the stock
Asciidoc configuration:
@@ -149,7 +153,10 @@
# Inline macros.
# Backslash prefix required for escape processing.
# (?s) re flag for line spanning.
-(?su)[\\]?(?P<name>\w(\w|-)*?):(?P<target>\S*?)(\[(?P<attrlist>.*?)\])=
+
+# Explicit so they can be nested.
+(?su)[\\]?(?P<name>(http|https|ftp|file|mailto|callto|image|link)):(?P<target>\S*?)(\[(?P<attrlist>.*?)\])=
+
# Anchor: [[[id]]]. Bibliographic anchor.
(?su)[\\]?\[\[\[(?P<attrlist>[\w][\w-]*?)\]\]\]=anchor3
# Anchor: [[id,xreflabel]]
This default regex now matches explicit values, and unfortunately in this
case gitlink was being matched by just 'link', causing the wrong inline
macro template to be applied. By renaming the macro, we can avoid being
matched by the wrong regex.
Signed-off-by: Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Jakub Narebski pointed out that the git-gui blame viewer is not a
widely known feature, but is incredibly useful. Part of the issue
is advertising. Up until now we haven't even referenced git-gui from
within the core Git manual pages, mostly because I just wasn't sure
how I wanted to supply git-gui documentation to end-users, or how
that documentation should integrate with the core Git documentation.
Based upon Jakub's comment that many users may not even know that
the gui is available in a stock Git distribution I'm offering up
two basic manual pages: git-citool and git-gui. These should offer
enough of a starting point for users to identify that the gui exists,
and how to start it. Future releases of git-gui may contain their
own documentation system available from within a running git-gui.
But not today.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
