From: "Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: "Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: change doc line length limit in contributors guide
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 14:20:58 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <B27915DBBA3421428155699D51E4CFE2332E0E49@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5820031.igZ32l5vOD@xps>
> -----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.
John
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-16 14:21 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 [this message]
2017-05-16 14:37 ` Thomas Monjalon
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=B27915DBBA3421428155699D51E4CFE2332E0E49@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=john.mcnamara@intel.com \
--cc=bernard.iremonger@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/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).