From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>, lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com
Cc: jani.nikula@intel.com, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
rdunlap@infradead.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] docs: submit-checklist: change to autonumbered lists
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2024 08:55:51 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8734t7z4vs.fsf@meer.lwn.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8df0c587-8f5b-4523-89d7-dc458ab2c1df@gmail.com>
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> writes:
>> -1) If you use a facility then #include the file that defines/declares
>> +#. If you use a facility then #include the file that defines/declares
>> that facility. Don't depend on other header files pulling in ones
>> that you use.
>
> Wait. This will render the list starting from:
>
> 1. If you use ...
>
> In patch 1/1, you didn't change the ")".
>
> It was Jani who suggested "#.", but "#)" would work just fine.
So I'm a little confused. Is the objection that it renders the number
as "1." rather than "1)"? That doesn't seem like the biggest of deals,
somehow, but am I missing something?
A bigger complaint I might raise is that auto-numbering restarts the
enumeration in each subsection, so we have a lot of steps #1, which is a
definite change from before.
That, of course, can be fixed by giving an explicit starting number in
each subsection, partially defeating the point of the change in the
first place.
I honestly have to wonder: does this document need the enumerated list
at all? We don't refer to the numbers anywhere, so I don't think there
is much useful information there. How about just using regular bulleted
lists instead?
That said, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, and can
certainly apply it as-is if that's the consensus on what we should do.
Thanks,
jon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-03 15:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-29 3:07 [PATCH v2 0/3] docs: submit-checklist: structure by category Lukas Bulwahn
2024-02-29 3:07 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] " Lukas Bulwahn
2024-02-29 3:07 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] docs: submit-checklist: use subheadings Lukas Bulwahn
2024-02-29 6:04 ` Randy Dunlap
2024-02-29 3:07 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] docs: submit-checklist: change to autonumbered lists Lukas Bulwahn
2024-02-29 6:06 ` Randy Dunlap
2024-02-29 7:52 ` Akira Yokosawa
2024-03-03 15:55 ` Jonathan Corbet [this message]
2024-03-03 18:19 ` Randy Dunlap
2024-03-04 1:14 ` Akira Yokosawa
2024-02-29 10:25 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] docs: submit-checklist: structure by category Jani Nikula
2024-02-29 10:36 ` Lukas Bulwahn
2024-03-03 16:00 ` Jonathan Corbet
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8734t7z4vs.fsf@meer.lwn.net \
--to=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=akiyks@gmail.com \
--cc=jani.nikula@intel.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=workflows@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox