Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:09:46PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Jeff King wrote: >> >> > But IMHO, using backticks looks much better. In the roff-formatted >> > manpages single quotes underline, but backticks use bold. >> >> Are you sure? My copy of git.1.gz has backticks converted into no >> formatting at all: >> >> Other options are available to control how the manual page is displayed\&. See >> \fBgit-help\fR(1) >> for more information, because >> git \-\-help \&.\&.\&. >> is converted internally into >> git help \&.\&.\&.\&. > > It's actually optional. See 5121a6d (Documentation: option to render > literal text as bold for manpages, 2009-03-27). I don't see a good > reason that wasn't made the default early, except conservatism. I've had > it enabled for years (though I admit I don't read the manpages that much > these days :) ). Interesting. What I happen to use when populating the git-manpages repository would have wider impact to the users, as I hear that some (or many) distros just package whatever I have there. I do not mind enabling it on my end if that gives us more readable rendition. -- 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