Message ID | pull.1246.v3.git.1654858481.gitgitgadget@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | bitmap-format.txt: fix some formatting issues and include checksum info | expand |
"Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > There are some issues in the bitmap-format html page. For example, some > nested lists are shown as top-level lists (e.g. [1]- Here > BITMAP_OPT_FULL_DAG (0x1) and BITMAP_OPT_HASH_CACHE (0x4) are shown as > top-level list). There is also a need of adding info about trailing checksum > in the docs. Quite honestly, I am not sure if a piecemeal "let's make <pre>...</pre> a bit prettier" is worth our time. Especially relative to the importance of adding missing information to the documentation. So, if this round (I haven't looked at the formatting changes at all yet) turns out to be still not doing the HTML properly, I'd suggest shuffling the patches around, add missing information so that readers can get the corrections in text regardless of the rest of HTMLify effort. We'll see. Thanks.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 10:01:02AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> > writes: > > > There are some issues in the bitmap-format html page. For example, some > > nested lists are shown as top-level lists (e.g. [1]- Here > > BITMAP_OPT_FULL_DAG (0x1) and BITMAP_OPT_HASH_CACHE (0x4) are shown as > > top-level list). There is also a need of adding info about trailing checksum > > in the docs. > > Quite honestly, I am not sure if a piecemeal "let's make > <pre>...</pre> a bit prettier" is worth our time. Especially > relative to the importance of adding missing information to the > documentation. > > So, if this round (I haven't looked at the formatting changes at all > yet) turns out to be still not doing the HTML properly, I'd suggest > shuffling the patches around, add missing information so that readers > can get the corrections in text regardless of the rest of HTMLify > effort. We'll see. This version of the series significantly improves the readability of the generated HTML, and I only had a minor comment or two. So I think that the improvement is worthwhile, though if others disagree strongly, the third patch should get picked up regardless, since it addresses a legitimate gap in our documentation. Thanks, Taylor
Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes: > This version of the series significantly improves the readability of the > generated HTML, and I only had a minor comment or two. Yeah, I looked at the output and it is improved so much to the point that the remaining paragraph or two that are still typeset in the fixed font incorrectly start to look even irritating ;-) I've tentatively queued it in my tree. I doubt that the topic is ultra-urgent so if the remaining mark-up issues can be fixed before the topic hits 'next', that would be great. Thanks, both.