Re: Request for detailed documentation of git pack protocol

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jakub Narebski wrote:
I don't think RFC _process_ is something to worry about; in the future
perhaps (just like Atom Publishing protocol was submitted to IETF).
I was thinking about _format_ used in RFC (BNF-like specification,
specific semantic for 'MUST' etc. like in RFC2119). Although any format
(more or less formal) would be better that none.

Standardese, the peculiar dialect and formalism employed by RFC authors, is not difficult to master. The difficult part is writing the prose that's an _unambiguous_ description of the protocol you're attempting to document. There's even a tool, xml2rfc, that will do the formatting for you.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]