Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: [jc: I forgot to cc the area expert, so here is a forward] > Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> $ git interpret-trailers <<EOF >> > subject >> -> >> +> >> > message >> -> >> +> >> > see: HEAD~2 >> > EOF >> subject > > This example pretends as if the above was an interactive session the > writer of the documentation did with a shell in a terminal, and > these lines are trying to show that each line is prefixed with $PS2 > (the secondary prompt string given by the shell for continued > lines). > > Taking that fact into account, it is arguably more correct to keep > these spaces rather than removing them like this patch does, but of > course it does not make a practical difference, because these spaces > are invisible unless the reader reads the source documentation pages > without passing them through AsciiDoc machinery. > > The only folks that would be helped by this patch are those of us > who edit one of these four lines of the source file (perhaps by > replacing '>' with '|', such a patch tries to show use of a > different $PS2) and are annoyed to see trailing whitespaces their > patch inherited from the original trigger "git diff --check"; I > wonder if that is a good enough justification. > > I, however, do wonder if we should make our example more friendly to > cutting and pasting. And I would not mind it if we got rid of these > 4 trailing whitespaces as a side effect of such an effort. > > One way to do so, while still pretending to show an actual session > with an interactive shell, may be to give the example with an empty > string set to $PS2, i.e. > > $ git interpret-trailers <<\EOF > subject > > message > > see: HEAD~2 > EOF > subject > ... > > but then it makes it a bit harder to see what is input and what is > output. Showing with a separate intermediate file, i.e. > > $ cat sample-message.txt > subject > > message > > see: HEAD~2 > $ git interpret-trailers <sample-message.txt > subject > ... > > might make the result slightly easier to follow. I dunno. > > The same comment applies to the other hunk. > > Thanks.
