On 05/28, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Yeah sorry, that's what I meant. > > https://public-inbox.org/git/20180308150820.22588-1-avarab@xxxxxxxxx/ > > is the reference I meant to put there. > > > > How about something like the below? This is tested with asciidoc > > 8.6.10 and asciidoctor 1.5.6.2. I'm also happy to squash the two > > patches into one if that's preferred. > > > > If the discussion in the proposed log message needs to be updated > anyway, it is a good opportunity to make them into a single patch, > as they share exactly the same objective. This was mostly a clarification of the note I added after the '---', but I'm happy to just make this one patch either way. > This is a tangent, but the use of footnote below looks a but > curious. How would {1} reference pick which :1: to use? The > closest preceding one? Tbh I didn't look at the docs for doing this, but just used the same syntax as we're already using and tried it with both asciidoc and asciidoctor. And yes it seems like it always picks the preceeding one. > As this appears on a page that already has other footnotes attached > to an adjacent paragraph, I am wondering if they should be made into > a part of the same numbering sequence. I have now actually looked at the docs, and this numbering has nothing to do with the footnote format, but rather is used to substitute the attribute that's specified in the curly braces with the text that's after :<attribute>: [1]. This initially confused me a bit. Maybe it would be nicer to give the attributes names instead of just numbers? As we keep adding footnotes, that would be less likely to produce conflicts between the different attributes I think. I'm also adding brian to the cc list, as he first converted this to AsciiDoc for opinions. [1]: https://asciidoctor.org/docs/asciidoc-syntax-quick-reference/#attributes-and-substitutions > > @@ -264,6 +264,11 @@ people who are involved in the area you are touching (the `git > > contacts` command in `contrib/contacts/` can help to > > identify them), to solicit comments and reviews. > > > > +:1: footnote:[The Git Security mailing list: git-security@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > + > > +Patches which are security relevant should be submitted privately to > > +the Git Security mailing list{1}. > > + > > :1: footnote:[The current maintainer: gitster@xxxxxxxxx] > > :2: footnote:[The mailing list: git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Also, the placement of this new paragraph is rather odd. > > I am guessing that the reason why you put it _before_ the normal > list address is to make sure those with secrets that must be guarded > won't send it to the list first without thinking, but then this > place is too late for that, as the previous paragraph already told > the reader that the patch should be sent to the list and others but > not necessarily to the maintainer. This should go one paragraph > before that, at least. I briefly considered suggesting to move it > even earlier, e.g. the beginning of "Sending your patches" section, > but then by the time readers with potential security patches may > have forgotten it, or worse, get confused by us, when we say "Send > your patches with To: set to the list". So I dunno. The most > conservative would be to write it at the beginning of the section > and then repeat it just before "Send to the list, Cc releavant > people" paragraph as a reminder. Yeah I wasn't quite sure where to best fit this in. I'd be happy with it appearing twice. Will update this in v2.
