This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa/doc] Versions and Branches
- From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
- To: ac131313 at cygnus dot com
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:59:49 +0200
- Subject: Re: [rfa/doc] Versions and Branches
- References: <3C919ABC.7000902@cygnus.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 01:54:52 -0500
> From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
>
> This is the revised version/branch section of gdbint.texinfo. Looking
> beter?
Yes, thanks. But it looks like I confused you too much with my
previous comments about @var. Sorry...
> +@value{GDBN}'s release branch uses a slightly more complicated scheme.
> +When the branch is first cut, the mainline version identifier is
> +prefixed with the @var{major.minor} from of the previous release series
> +but with @var{.90} appended. As draft releases are drawn from the
> +branch, the minor minor number (@var{.90}) is incremented. Once the
> +first release (@var{M.N}) has been made, the version prefix is updated
> +to @var{M.N.0.90} (dot zero, dot ninety). Follow on releases have an
> +incremented minor minor version number (@var{.0}).
Doesn't makeinfo whine about unlikely characters in @var or something?
If it does, use @var{n}.@var{m} instead of @var{n.m} etc.
In any case, a literal numbered version, such as 5.1.90, should _never_
be in @var. @var is used for symbols that stand for something else.
For example, m and n in "m.n" each stand for some number, thus they
should have the @var markup. By contrast, 5, 1, and 90 in "5.1.90"
stand for themselves and nothing else, i.e. they are literal numbers,
not variables. So @var should not be used with them.
> +@table @var
> +@item 5.1.1
Accordingly, this table should not use @var, but @asis.
> +Since @value{GDBN} does not make minor minor minor releases
> +(e@.g@. @var{5.1.0.1}) the conflict between that and a minor minor draft
> +release identifier (e@.g@. @var{5.1.0.90}) is avoided.
"e.g." should be written as is:
...the conflict between that and a minor minor draft release
identifier (e.g., 5.1.0.1) is avoided.
In general, "e.g." is _always_ followed by a comma (which you omitted ;-),
and so TeX will never think its dot ends a sentence. So there's no need
to do anything about it. By contrast, "i.e." is _not_ followed by a comma
so you need to write "i.e.@:". (Note: "@:", not "@.", as you did in the
text above. "@." is for the opposite case: when a sentence ends with
a single capital letter, which might make TeX think it's not a sentence
end.)