> Le 30 mai 2025 à 09:28, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > > Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@xxxxxxxx> writes: > >>>> -When `--compose` is used, git send-email will use the From, To, Cc, Bcc, >>>> -Subject, Reply-To, and In-Reply-To headers specified in the message. If >>>> -the body of the message (what you type after the headers and a blank >>>> -line) only contains blank (or Git: prefixed) lines, the summary won't be >>>> +When `--compose` is used, `git send-email` will use the 'From', 'To', 'Cc', >>>> +'Bcc', 'Subject', 'Reply-To', and 'In-Reply-To' headers specified in the >>>> +message. If the body of the message (what you type after the headers and a >>>> +blank line) only contains blank (or Git: prefixed) lines, the summary won't be >>> >>> Shouldn't 'Git:' in "or Git: prefixed" be marked-up somehow as well? >>> >>> As these mail header names are all literal parts, shouldn't ehy be >>> marked up like `To`, `Cc`, etc.? >> >> I think its ok to let these remain in '', and deviate from the rules a bit. >> If backticks are used, it will be a mess when rendered on the website. > > I do not think I agree; bending the rule only because the density of > literals in a single paragraph is too heavy does not sound like a > good application of a rule---it is hard to justify such an > exception. To go a bit further, rendered HTML is also not the only output format, though I don’t think the markup here affects manual pages substantially? So using « the website » (which? presumably git-scm.com) as justification prioritizes the look of one output format over other concerns, no? For plaintext viewing, consistency is probably helpful. > >>>> - by 'c_rehash', or a single file containing one or more PEM format >>>> - certificates concatenated together: see verify(1) -CAfile and >>>> - -CApath for more information on these). Set it to an empty string >>>> + by `c_rehash`, or a single file containing one or more PEM format >>>> + certificates concatenated together). Set it to an empty string >>> >>> What is this change about? grammatical errors? non existent links? >>> cpan links? It does not look any of these. >> >> Non existing links. Checkout the website. > > But I do not see any link in ... > >>>> - by 'c_rehash', or a single file containing one or more PEM format >>>> - certificates concatenated together: see verify(1) -CAfile and >>>> - -CApath for more information on these). Set it to an empty string > > ... the text that was removed. The reference to verify(1) is a > command in the OpenSSL suite, right? >
