From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15793 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2002 09:03:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15680 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2002 09:03:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO heimdall.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2002 09:03:00 -0000 Received: from zaretsky (diup-216-140.inter.net.il [213.8.216.140]) by heimdall.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id BGH78778; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:02:52 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 01:03:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: ac131313@cygnus.com Message-Id: <2947-Fri15Mar2002105949+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <3C919ABC.7000902@cygnus.com> (message from Andrew Cagney on Fri, 15 Mar 2002 01:54:52 -0500) Subject: Re: [rfa/doc] Versions and Branches Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <3C919ABC.7000902@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00231.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 01:54:52 -0500 > From: Andrew Cagney > > 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.)