On Jul 17 06:50, Brian Inglis wrote: > On 2020-07-17 05:17, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Jul 16 21:35, Brian Inglis wrote: > >> Just want to get feedback on how these FAQ changes should be packaged as > >> patches > >> (separate, series, single) and whether some of the changes should not be > >> applied > >> at all. > > What about how they should be committed - by file or all in one, and > submitted - separately by file, or as a FAQ patch series?
By theme would be preferrable. I.e, one patch Win32 -> WinAPI, one patch ulink changes, etc. > >> Summary > >> > >> General: > >> > >> change setup references to use the Cygwin Setup program; > >> change Win32 references to Windows; > > > > Please, no. At least not where Win32 refers to the API. While this is > > called "Windows API" these days, the word Windows alone doesn't really > > cut it. At leats use "Windows API" then, or IMHO even better, use the > > informal "WinAPI" abbreviation. > > Good idea - will check and change depending on context. > > >> reword net release or distribution references; > > > > Uhm... example? I'm not sure what you mean here. > > They look like original wording from when there were Cygnus/Red Hat > releases and net releases: the distinction has been moot and the > phrase not used in these lists for years. Oh, all right. "Cygwin distro" is the new "net distro", I guess. > >> emphasize 64-bit Cygwin and setup-x86_64 over 32-bit; > >> change see <ulink/> to place links around available wording; > >> change <literal> for <filename> or <command> where appropriate; > >> change bash .{ext1,ext2} usage to .ext1/.ext2; > > > > Using comma separated lists within curly braces is the offical > > shell way to express alternatives: > > > > $ echo a.{b,c} > > a.b a.c > > > > Please keep them as is. > > These usages are in descriptions, not in shell command contexts, and > not used in most (POSIX) scripts, so many users will not recognize > this convention, not even those who do some scripts but are > inexperienced. My fingers are trained in their use, but would use > them in text only to other developers. ;^> Well, most of the descriptions are written for developers in the first place. But, be it as it is, I don't see an advantage in using slash-separated lists here. Whatever you use, it's a documentation convention and there's always somebody puzzeling over them. Usually you fix this by adding a "conventions in this document" chapter, but at least the curly braces have a known meaning to devs, while something with slashes in it typically means a path. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Maintainer