On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 01:25:49PM +0200, J. Neuschäfer wrote: > Applying both ``code`` and **bold** formatting doesn't have the intended > outcome, instead Sphinx emits the backticks into the HTML. > > Use only **bold** formatting to fix the HTML output. > > Signed-off-by: J. Neuschäfer <[email protected]> > --- > I'm fine with either solution, keeping the bold or code formatting, and I'll > switch to the other if requested. They just don't mix well.
Bold is probably the least worst option here, as it helps legibility of the doc more IMHO. > --- > docs/devel/code-provenance.rst | 10 +++++----- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <[email protected]> > > diff --git a/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst b/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst > index > 4e6a9afe0d672c544c069447a9978baa0b4a6212..65b8f232a08f6bc903c77fd0b1f7a5adad9fbe5d > 100644 > --- a/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst > +++ b/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst > @@ -99,13 +99,13 @@ Other commit tags > While the ``Signed-off-by`` tag is mandatory, there are a number of other > tags > that are commonly used during QEMU development: > > - * **``Reviewed-by``**: when a QEMU community member reviews a patch on the > + * **Reviewed-by**: when a QEMU community member reviews a patch on the > mailing list, if they consider the patch acceptable, they should send an > email reply containing a ``Reviewed-by`` tag. Subsystem maintainers who > review a patch should add this even if they are also adding their > ``Signed-off-by`` to the same commit. > > - * **``Acked-by``**: when a QEMU subsystem maintainer approves a patch that > + * **Acked-by**: when a QEMU subsystem maintainer approves a patch that > touches their subsystem, but intends to allow a different maintainer to > queue it and send a pull request, they would send a mail containing a > ``Acked-by`` tag. Where a patch touches multiple subsystems, ``Acked-by`` > @@ -113,18 +113,18 @@ that are commonly used during QEMU development: > maintainer wants to indicate they have done a full review they should use > a ``Reviewed-by`` tag. > > - * **``Tested-by``**: when a QEMU community member has functionally tested > the > + * **Tested-by**: when a QEMU community member has functionally tested the > behaviour of the patch in some manner, they should send an email reply > containing a ``Tested-by`` tag. > > - * **``Reported-by``**: when a QEMU community member reports a problem via > the > + * **Reported-by**: when a QEMU community member reports a problem via the > mailing list, or some other informal channel that is not the issue > tracker, > it is good practice to credit them by including a ``Reported-by`` tag on > any patch fixing the issue. When the problem is reported via the GitLab > issue tracker, however, it is sufficient to just include a link to the > issue. > > - * **``Suggested-by``**: when a reviewer or other 3rd party makes non-trivial > + * **Suggested-by**: when a reviewer or other 3rd party makes non-trivial > suggestions for how to change a patch, it is good practice to credit them > by including a ``Suggested-by`` tag. > > > --- > base-commit: 6d17fd91f6cf88df5cb2205e578640d72605cc43 > change-id: 20260520-prov-73c69e4e979c > > Best regards, > -- > J. Neuschäfer <[email protected]> > > With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com ~~ https://hachyderm.io/@berrange :| |: https://libvirt.org ~~ https://entangle-photo.org :| |: https://pixelfed.art/berrange ~~ https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
