On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 10:13:48AM -0800, Evan Silberman wrote:
> Jason McIntyre <jmc@kerhand.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 02:26:12PM -0800, Evan Silberman wrote:
> > > I was just going to come in here and zap some unnecessary \*(Lt but I
> > > got a bit carried away. This patch reorganizes and hopefully improves
> > > the DISTFILES section of rdist.1, which was a bit hard to follow and
> > > presented commands and subcommands in a weird way. This organizes the
> > > material in a way more familiar from other manual pages describing
> > > command languages.
> > > 
> > > Hopefully it's also accurate; I'm not actually an rdist user I just
> > > got sniped. I tried not to freelance too much and retained much of the
> > > previous material even if some of it seems a bit vague. And I still
> > > zapped the unnecessary \*(Gt and \*(Lt.
> > > 
> > > Evan
> > > 
> > 
> > hi. the patch does not apply cleanly - can you retry (maybe attach it)?
> > jmc
> 
> Weird. Attached.

thanks, applies cleanly.

here's my thoughts:

- i'm not convinced we need a rewrite!

- i think there's too much in your diff to be able to judge it. i'm
  happy to handle it (if no one else steps up) but it needs to be in
  smaller pieces (for me anyway)

- i don;t like the removal of this text:

     		Each entry has one of the following formats.

	   <variable name> = <name list>
	   [ label: ] <source list> -> <destination list> <command list>
	   [ label: ] <source list> :: <timestamp file> <command list>

that is a very succint, clear, way to show it i think. i don;t use rdist
much, but it matches the one distfile i do use.

- i think your reorganising of subcommands look initially much more
  readable and logical.

so, do you want to piece it up? start with the Gt/Lt stuff, then go from
there?

jmc