Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ocamldoc manpage generator does not preserve formatting in {[ ]} #6596

Closed
vicuna opened this issue Oct 4, 2014 · 6 comments
Closed

ocamldoc manpage generator does not preserve formatting in {[ ]} #6596

vicuna opened this issue Oct 4, 2014 · 6 comments

Comments

@vicuna
Copy link

vicuna commented Oct 4, 2014

Original bug ID: 6596
Reporter: @whitequark
Assigned to: @zoggy
Status: assigned (set by @damiendoligez on 2015-01-16T16:24:21Z)
Resolution: open
Priority: normal
Severity: minor
Version: 4.03.0+dev / +beta1
Category: ocamldoc

Bug description

As I understand it, {[ ]} is intended for e.g. code samples. As such, in HTML documentation, it's written down using < pre >, and everything is fine. However, in manpages, it ignores newlines and whitespace and all the text smashes into a single line, making the sample unreadable.

@github-actions
Copy link

This issue has been open one year with no activity. Consequently, it is being marked with the "stale" label. What this means is that the issue will be automatically closed in 30 days unless more comments are added or the "stale" label is removed. Comments that provide new information on the issue are especially welcome: is it still reproducible? did it appear in other contexts? how critical is it? etc.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label May 11, 2020
@whitequark
Copy link
Member

Still an issue.

@Octachron
Copy link
Member

This was fixed in #9113 .

@xavierleroy
Copy link
Contributor

@whitequark: could you please check that something is "still an issue" before commenting?

@whitequark
Copy link
Member

@xavierleroy Could you please not threaten to automatically close, for the most part, valid issues in bulk simply because they were inactive for a year? This is a hostile policy and I will deal with it the way I deal with hostile policies.

@whitequark
Copy link
Member

whitequark commented May 11, 2020

And to be clear, doing automatic triage like this once, or triaging manually with the same request would not be a problem. It is the part where this policy creates endless make-work for reporters each year that makes it hostile.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants