Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > The first hunk seems less obviously good to me. We're not part of a > list, so there's no continuation. We might say that it is good to always > stick the callout list directly adjacent to the associated code block, > since it does matter in other cases. But dropping the blank lines > between the paragraph-sized callout blocks makes the source less > readable, and empty lines between list elements are a pretty normal > thing in asciidoc. > > That said, I don't feel _too_ strongly about it, so I'm OK with the > patch as-is. I agree with the conclusion. The first hunk may be iffy (in the sense that "it is not cut-and-dried better than the original"), but the change makes the postimage of that hunk look similar to the postimage of the second hunk, and adopting it as our local rule to alwys stick the callout list to the associated block gives us more consistent look, that is good, too.
