From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B62D220756 for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2017 03:27:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934270AbdAHD1O (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Jan 2017 22:27:14 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:36557 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932382AbdAHD1M (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Jan 2017 22:27:12 -0500 Received: (qmail 29219 invoked by uid 109); 8 Jan 2017 03:27:12 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Sun, 08 Jan 2017 03:27:12 +0000 Received: (qmail 28392 invoked by uid 111); 8 Jan 2017 03:28:02 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Sat, 07 Jan 2017 22:28:02 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 07 Jan 2017 22:27:09 -0500 Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 22:27:09 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?B?66eI64iE7JeY?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] asciidoctor: fix user-manual to be built by `asciidoctor` Message-ID: <20170108032709.k43zmej5lxmcoj4o@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <3c160f81a88cf8697f2459bb7f2a3e27fb3e469c.1483373021.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> <20170104080852.bmlmtzxhjx4qt74f@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 02:03:30PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Is that a longer way to say that the claim "... is designed as a > book" is false? > > > So I dunno. I really do think "article" is conceptually the most > > appropriate style, but I agree that there are some book-like things > > (like appendices). > > ... Yeah, I should have read forward first before starting to insert > my comments. To be honest, I'm not sure whether "book" versus "article" was really considered in the original writing. I think we can call it whichever produces the output we find most pleasing. I was mostly just pointing at there are some tradeoffs in the end result in flipping the type. -Peff