From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: "Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>
Cc: "Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: change doc line length limit in contributors guide
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 16:37:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2214405.r0ci9WgVl6@xps> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <B27915DBBA3421428155699D51E4CFE2332E0E49@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com>
16/05/2017 16:20, Mcnamara, John:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> > Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:24 AM
> > ,,,
> >
> > > The current DPDK "single sentence per line plus wrap at ~120 characters"
> > > guideline is unusual, not supported by editors and, with rare
> > > exceptions, not followed by anyone.
> > >
> > > As such I think the guidelines should reflect how people actually
> > > write docs and submit patches, which is wrapping at 80 characters.
> >
> > I am OK with 80 characters.
> > However, I think we should keep trying to explain that it is better to
> > wrap at the end of a sentence.
> >
> > Example:
> > This long sentence with a lot of words which does not mean anything will
> > wrap at 80 characters and continue on the second line. Then a new sentence
> > starts and ends on the third line.
> >
> > It would be better like that:
> > This long sentence with a lot of words which does not mean anything will
> > wrap at 80 characters and continue on the second line.
> > Then a new sentence starts and ends on the third line.
>
> This is essentially the same problem as the current guideline: that this
> is an artificial way of writing text, it isn't supported by editors,
> and is unlikely to be followed in practice.
>
> The first example is the way people write text and the way text is submitted
> in patches so the guidelines should reflect this.
You are the doc maintainer, it's your call :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-16 14:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-11 14:09 John McNamara
2017-05-11 15:23 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-05-11 16:11 ` Mcnamara, John
2017-05-11 17:18 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-05-11 17:31 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2017-05-12 9:10 ` Mcnamara, John
2017-05-12 9:23 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-05-16 14:20 ` Mcnamara, John
2017-05-16 14:37 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2017-05-22 6:44 ` Yuanhan Liu
2017-06-04 10:26 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-05-12 12:34 ` Shreyansh Jain
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2214405.r0ci9WgVl6@xps \
--to=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=bernard.iremonger@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=john.mcnamara@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).