Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-89812-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>, lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com
Cc: jani.nikula@intel.com, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 rdunlap@infradead.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org, Akira Yokosawa
 <akiyks@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] docs: submit-checklist: change to autonumbered
 lists
In-Reply-To: <8df0c587-8f5b-4523-89d7-dc458ab2c1df@gmail.com>
References: <20240229030743.9125-4-lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
 <8df0c587-8f5b-4523-89d7-dc458ab2c1df@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2024 08:55:51 -0700
Message-ID: <8734t7z4vs.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> writes:

>> -1) If you use a facility then #include the file that defines/declares
>> +#. If you use a facility then #include the file that defines/declares
>>     that facility.  Don't depend on other header files pulling in ones
>>     that you use.
>
> Wait.  This will render the list starting from:
>
>     1. If you use ...
>
> In patch 1/1, you didn't change the ")".
>
> It was Jani who suggested "#.", but "#)" would work just fine.

So I'm a little confused.  Is the objection that it renders the number
as "1." rather than "1)"?  That doesn't seem like the biggest of deals,
somehow, but am I missing something?

A bigger complaint I might raise is that auto-numbering restarts the
enumeration in each subsection, so we have a lot of steps #1, which is a
definite change from before.

That, of course, can be fixed by giving an explicit starting number in
each subsection, partially defeating the point of the change in the
first place.

I honestly have to wonder: does this document need the enumerated list
at all?  We don't refer to the numbers anywhere, so I don't think there
is much useful information there.  How about just using regular bulleted
lists instead?

That said, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, and can
certainly apply it as-is if that's the consensus on what we should do.

Thanks,

jon