From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: TLS docs fixes for <programlisting> |
Date: | 2020-05-14 02:17:13 |
Message-ID: | 20200514021713.GB166343@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 11:07:44PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> While working with TLS I noticed that the password callback definition had an
> extra newline in the programlisting in the docs. Since the <programlisting>
> has been indented with the textblock, the newline comes from whitespace being
> significant. The attached 0001 fixes by instead anchoring <programlisting> on
> column zero like how most of the docs do it. Grepping around I found one more
> instance of the same pattern which is also included.
Indeed, I can see the difference. In what I spotted after applying
0001, you are patching the one in libpq.sgml as of 0002 but in a
different, correct, way, and I have spotted three more inconsistencies
within doc/src/sgml/datatype.sgml in the zone for timestamps.
> The "Enter PEM pass phrase" prompt was referred to in one place with <literal>
> and one with <programlisting>, the 0002 settles on using <literal> for both
> since IMO that makes the docs more readable. While there, it also fixes the
> spelling of "pass phrase" from the two variations we had (of which none was the
> correct one from src/backend/libpq/be-secure-openssl.c as well as the OpenSSL
> file crypto/pem/pem_lib.c).
Yeah, good catch. Let's fix that.
With everything I found on top of your stuff, I finish with the
attached. Does it look fine to you?
--
Michael
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
doc-fixes-daniel-v2.patch | text/x-diff | 4.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2020-05-14 02:27:33 | Re: Another modest proposal for docs formatting: catalog descriptions |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-05-14 00:07:38 | Re: Missing comma? |