From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0E4067C52; Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:55:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709481355; cv=none; b=SMfVN+B/rXs5AqEiWo2HKY2wl5FDOhJDabWD+xoUTHo2a4lMeYJBqXIT1QqxfDQWAaSKqI9cz/HJJYiRNEGKkAGjVx6BJuNTSIBE2ysNh8osnkqb/DIUu1lYlJ9vGkMNixhBHQ6QaIv2MqTg5l0hcrszxjgUIVhAmoBSlPzi2+A= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709481355; c=relaxed/simple; bh=A4oTZLMFkOenzCOJ/988jBNt6yXBVrkt33H6ar9BUhk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ILRCkgzysEOe0Q+Ru5CzUvGgjHhDNhP8dViRTM8Ff03Iuh3jA+JgNtwR2dZztEVmUg3T/FcrJrI3d4BCsiBIbMOeu21Guub02tC/k9Dc6bYEhiiOTHQdKC8Jwp0P+SnEFD85GxIskYtAHLYc7Vf/A/egYfIvWdRewwGmVMpkZVw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=aUld6k3M; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="aUld6k3M" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net BC716418B6 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1709481352; bh=MYNtKSCO59wyJH3h0SJ4lWAQ9OF6yT+pyl7GmiHG76M=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=aUld6k3MOhNiW5SOakY4A89povdbxKwn1JO1ZNRdO5Py2S63GQVylVdBBbmqPlBGa qWMm4ZGEDKgCz4VjXsnhpG0K4NjrrAsxEqehtY1SPGV3D/EZ5CQ6XmdgQ/Lko7nope ma3jqMrXbCb6jWtj7mU1DhYNfZZtXMXXq5nSpKDJRumuFvpJ6enMX05qIRCHUPCLdU 3XRz02qFomIX1SJp4HxZ881qZH33vF4JNRgW0mT6XdMHUAL96QDRETbUoYFTJCAEu2 io/uWaSHISTdu3qiyDb+QhCyQ1YlI0+MTasOr6yZdvrRdxIC+95CzGVaFQOpvN4+rd DotcBLla2n73A== Received: from localhost (mdns.lwn.net [45.79.72.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BC716418B6; Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:55:52 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Akira Yokosawa , 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] docs: submit-checklist: change to autonumbered lists In-Reply-To: <8df0c587-8f5b-4523-89d7-dc458ab2c1df@gmail.com> References: <20240229030743.9125-4-lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> <8df0c587-8f5b-4523-89d7-dc458ab2c1df@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2024 08:55:51 -0700 Message-ID: <8734t7z4vs.fsf@meer.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Akira Yokosawa 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