From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: Section on #+include keyword is missing quite some info in the org-manual.org Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:47:41 +0200 Message-ID: <87ftxwr0vm.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37448) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g57ME-0003qk-14 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 06:47:50 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g57MA-0002X6-Re for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 06:47:49 -0400 Received: from relay9-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.199]:49587) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g57MA-0002WS-K0 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 06:47:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Kaushal Modi's message of "Tue, 25 Sep 2018 22:23:39 -0400") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: Kaushal Modi Cc: emacs-org list Hello, Kaushal Modi writes: > I was visiting the Org manual to verify if I got the :only-contents > parameter of #+include keyword correct, and noticed that that info is > completely missing from that section in the new org-manual.org. > > Reverting back to older texi, it is missing pieces like below and much more too: > > #+INCLUDE: "./paper.org::#theory" :only-contents t > @r{Include the body of the heading with the custom id @samp{theory}} > > #+INCLUDE: "./paper.org::mytable" @r{Include named element.} > #+INCLUDE: "./paper.org::*conclusion" :lines 1-20 > > @r{Include the first 20 lines of the headline named @samp{conclusion}.} > > > If this is not intentional (looks like it's not because that feature > works great and I would miss it if it did not), I can commit update to > org-manual.org with that whole section restored from the past. This is not intentional. Could you re-introduce the latest revision of that section? > But I am wondering if things are more serious.. how do we ensure that > the org-manual.org is not missing out the useful info from the old > org.texi? Eyeballing. I did it a couple of times already, but more eyes are needed, obviously. Thank you. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou