From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yuanhan Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] doc: change doc line length limit in contributors guide Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 14:44:24 +0800 Message-ID: <20170522064424.GO2276@yliu-dev> References: <1494511780-5732-1-git-send-email-john.mcnamara@intel.com> <8CEF83825BEC744B83065625E567D7C224D5D178@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <5820031.igZ32l5vOD@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Thomas Monjalon , "Iremonger, Bernard" , "dev@dpdk.org" To: "Mcnamara, John" Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C42D028EE for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 08:48:54 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 02:20:58PM +0000, Mcnamara, John wrote: > > > > -----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. +1 for the first one :) And, Reviewed-by: Yuanhan Liu --yliu