Re: CM 1.1 git question

[Trevor Daniels]

Jonathan Kulp wrote Friday, February 20, 2009 2:58 PM


> Graham Percival wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 08:09:21AM -0600, Jonathan Kulp wrote:
> > > Is this right?  I surmise that this pulls down more code than 
> > > strictly
> > > necessary for working on docs, but I don't mind having the extra 
> > > code.
> > > Maybe I should delete the whole directory and do a fresh clone.
> >
> > Oh, I forgot to mention...
> >
> > I personally hope that you **don't** learn anything about git 
> > from
> > all this discussion.  I need somebody who is intelligent, willing
> > to follow instructions, willing to patient while we work out
> > problems... but who fundamentally ONLY follows the instructions
> > written in the latest online version of CG 1.
> >
> > That's the only way that we'll get good docs for new 
> > contributors.
> > Remember my "the only answer is RTFM" idea?  i.e.
> >
> > 1.  Contributor (you) has a problem.
> > 2.  Knowledgeable person glances at the docs, fixes / clarifies
> > the point in question.
> > 3.  Knowledgeable person says "RTFM 1.1  (but wait until midnight
> > when the new changes will be visilbe)"
> > 4.  Goto #1
> > 5.  Profit.  ($$$)
> >
> >
> > Once we've gone through all this pain (you being confused about
> > git, and we (possibly including me) editing the CG), the next
> > contributor will have a much easier task.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > - Graham
>
> I'll try my best not to learn anything. :)  I went and followed 
> the
> instructions in CG for creating the new branch and it worked fine, 
> I
> think.  I got my "lastest" typo back anyway.  So I fixed that and 
> also
> went through and made a bunch of quotation mark fixes to use the 
> @q{}
> and @qq{} command.  I stripped trailing white spaces.  My editor 
> says
> the line endings are unix.  I hope it turns out o.k. on the other 
> end.
> Trevor, do you want to try applying this one?  Thanks guys,

You have removed all the whitespace, but the lines still
have Windows line terminations (CR-LF).  I fixed that, but
I'm afraid it still doesn't apply.  I honestly don't
know whether the problem is at my end or yours.  Maybe
someone else could try it.  Or you could reset your repo
and try it yourself.

There are a couple of peculiarities with the file.

The Subject: field says you fixed numerous @q{}
and @qq{} errors, but nothing like this appears in
the body of the patch.

Some context lines seem to be missing.  In particular,
one part of the patch says

@@ -248,8 +248,8 @@ Manual at
@section Sharing your changes

@menu
-* Producing a patch::
-* Committing directly::
+* Producing a patch::
+* Committing directly::
@end menu

but the corresponding section of the .itely file
has

Manual at
@uref{http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/user-manual.html}



@node Sharing your changes
@section Sharing your changes

@menu
* Producing a patch::
* Committing directly::
@end menu

I'm out of ideas at the moment.  I need to do a bit
more research on patch formatting to understand
what is going on.  I'll look again tomorrow.

Trevor