From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] doc: change doc line length limit in contributors guide Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 12:26:47 +0200 Message-ID: <3151665.10RMzPgsok@xps> References: <1494511780-5732-1-git-send-email-john.mcnamara@intel.com> <20170522064424.GO2276@yliu-dev> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Yuanhan Liu , "Iremonger, Bernard" To: "Mcnamara, John" Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D330E7CDF for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2017 12:26:48 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20170522064424.GO2276@yliu-dev> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 22/05/2017 08:44, Yuanhan Liu: > 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 I disagree but I have applied it ;) (with the fix from Shreyansh)