On Fri, Jul 15 2022, Matheus Tavares wrote: > Em qui, 14 de jul de 2022 18:27, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: >> >> >> Here's a cleaned up version of what I have, which I figure is probably >> better linked-to than contributing to my E-Mail quota :): >> >> https://github.com/git/git/compare/master...avar:git:avar/doc-config-includes > > Thanks for sharing your version! > >> The one thing I'd like you to reconsider is to drop the idea of adding >> these "ifndef::git-grep[]" defines and the like. In your version it >> yields an arguably better result. >> >> But I think what we should be going for is the more general direction >> outlined above, at which point that becomes quite a mess of >> ifdefs. I.e. config/gc/rerere.txt would need to know what it's going to >> get include in, which would be N number of manpages in the genreal case, >> not just "main or config" as this series leaves it. >> >> I think the solution I have to that in 1/9 in that first series is a >> better trade-off, i.e. we just (eventually, your series doesn't need to >> do that) include some standard wording saying that what you're looking >> at in git-CMD(1) is transcluded as-is from the relevant part of >> git-config(1). I.e.: >> >> Everything below this line in this section is selectively included >> from the linkgit:git-config[1] documentation. The content is the same >> as what's found there: >> >> What do you think about doing that instead? > > I like the includes/* idea, and I agree that it is a more sensible way > forward than the many 'ifndef[]::git-cmd.txt's :) Your linked changes > also cover a wider range of cmds than my series does. So I'd be happy > to have them as a replacement to this series. I can submit what I've got as a v2 if you'd like, but I'd be just as happy with you picking this up & running with it, whether that's seeing what you'd like to integrate into your series here, or perhaps rebasing your patches on the 1st patch I have (the one that introduces those "Everything below this..." template)> But OTOH if you're going to drop the "ifndef" idea I think what you'd come up with will be identical to the patch bodies I've got for the bits you modified, so perhaps it's easier if I just submit mine... Just let me know, I'd just like these docs fixed & unified.
