Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 02:03:30PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Is that a longer way to say that the claim "... is designed as a >> book" is false? >> >> > So I dunno. I really do think "article" is conceptually the most >> > appropriate style, but I agree that there are some book-like things >> > (like appendices). >> >> ... Yeah, I should have read forward first before starting to insert >> my comments. > > To be honest, I'm not sure whether "book" versus "article" was really > considered in the original writing. I think we can call it whichever > produces the output we find most pleasing. I was mostly just pointing at > there are some tradeoffs in the end result in flipping the type.
I understand. And I tend to agree that the silliness you observed (like a t-o-c for a one-section "chapter") is not quite welcome. For now I queued only 2/2 which looked good. I won't object if somebody else rerolls 1/2 to appease AsciiDoctor, but let's take an obviously good bit first. Thanks.
