Re: Fetching or installing package dev source from VCS: manual style

[Philip Kaludercic]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 06:58:02 +0000
>> 
>> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> >   > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> >   > @node Package from Source
>> >   > @section Package from Source
>> >   > @cindex package development source
>> >   > @cindex package upstream source
>> >   > @cindex package git source @c "git" is not technically correct
>> >
>> > That improves the @cindex commands.  But please look at the whole
>> > manual's index and see where these two show up.  If two of them appear
>> > close together, there is no need for both.  If they are separated  by
>> > several other commands, then it is useful to have both.
>> 
>> 3 matches for "Package from Source" in buffer: *info*
>>    1511:* package development source:            Package from Source.
>>    1515:* package git source:                    Package from Source.
>>    1525:* package upstream source:               Package from Source.
>> 
>> They seem close-by, so I am not sure if it is worth it.
>
> What's worse, they all point to the same place in the text.
>
> What I recommend doing in these cases is to reshuffle the words:
>
>  @cindex package development source
>  @cindex upstream source, for packages
>  @cindex git source of package @c "git" is not technically correct

This looks a lot better:

3 matches for "Package from Source" in buffer: *info*
    800:* git source of package:                 Package from Source.
   1513:* package development source:            Package from Source.
   2083:* upstream source, for packages:         Package from Source.


> This way, typing "package TAB" will still show all of them, but if
> someone thinks about "upstream source", for example, they can type
> "upstream source TAB" and find this.

That is also good.

>> I have to admit that I have never used the concept index directly.
>
> It is not very useful, except for finding duplicate and redundant
> entries.