re the bash code block, personally I'd like to see bash changed to text or removed. I did that for the README a while back. The code being displayed in most of the blocks labelled as bash is not Bash code, it just happens to include some commandline usage and the syntax highlighting is usually picking up pieces which aren't syntax. In this case the $ isn't Bash, it's just a prompt character.

Regarding renaming, I don't think you're going to get any support on this, it's unnecessary churn that makes the history too hard to follow. In general churn without strong justification gets a -1 around here for this reason.

Regarding unindending code blocks, I'm +1 on that, I've never liked the indent code block formatting and being explicit about js is helpful. This should also help if we go ahead with something along these lines for showing ES5/ESnext.

We need @nodejs/documentation in this discussion too though.

@eljefedelrodeodeljefe in case you weren't aware, there's an active call for involvement in the proposed Docs WG that might interest you: nodejs/docs#2

There's a few spots missing the js tag.

I'm overall +0 on this. Any other docs folks have thought on it?

From a @nodejs/documentation perspective, with respect to de-indenting and using language-aware code fences, this change is consistent with our new style guide (see the bottom).

While renaming from .markdown to .md is also consistent with with our style guide, it's a huge amount of churn on the files, as @rvagg already mentioned.

The code being displayed in most of the blocks labelled as bash is not Bash code, it just happens to include some commandline usage and the syntax highlighting is usually picking up pieces which aren't syntax.

This bug should be fixed.

Added @Qard's remarks in be6d6e8. @rvagg I agree on the churn. However maybe this will be the only time this can be touched. So please ignore the commit, while rebasing if no-one is in favor. @stevemao good link. I was looking at it and it seems to render okay, @rvagg . I have no strong opinion on bash. However you like it.

@rvagg thanks for welcoming me on the other PR and pointing to the docs wg. It's fun so far. :)

It's really unfortunate that git mv doesn't save history visibly. Or that GitHub isn't dragging git log --follow doc/api/stream.md data into history.

re bash, in this case it looks OK I guess, it's technically incorrect but mostly works, since it's already there don't bother changing it I suppose!

oh, and regarding the rename of the files, it's making the commit diff really large and hard to review so you may get more traction towards landing if you clean it up by removing that commit (let us know if you need any hints on the git-fu for that).

I will try something like this gist later https://gist.github.com/emiller/6769886 But this is probably too hard, since it's likely rewriting the history (into the new files). I will see. Thanks for the help!

Hi @rvagg Could you link git-fu here?

@stevemao sorry, just being colloquial, I was just meaning advanced git usage. In this case to remove a commit I'd use git rebase -i HEAD~4 and you can just remove a commit right out of the list. The problem is going to be that the later commit(s) depend so much on the file moves and I'm not sure git will be smart enough to know to edit the unmoved files. Then to push the edited branch back up you git push ... --force and it'll end up in here for us to see in its new form.

Oh yeah true... Thanks for the clarification.

@eljefedelrodeodeljefe Could you please move the .markdown -> .md rename to a separate PR? Thanks!

@Fishrock123 removed the commit by rebase and force pushing. Think the other PR got a little whacked.

I tell you....after that git-fu I appreciate your work even more :) cc @rvagg

More comparision of bash vs console highlighting:

bash

$ NODE_DEBUG=cluster node server.js
23521,Master Worker 23524 online
23521,Master Worker 23526 online
23521,Master Worker 23523 online
23521,Master Worker 23528 online

console

$ NODE_DEBUG=cluster node server.js
23521,Master Worker 23524 online
23521,Master Worker 23526 online
23521,Master Worker 23523 online
23521,Master Worker 23528 online

bash

$ node script.js 2> error.log | tee info.log

console

$ node script.js 2> error.log | tee info.log

bash

% node debug myscript.js
< debugger listening on port 5858
connecting... ok
break in /home/indutny/Code/git/indutny/myscript.js:1
  1 x = 5;
  2 setTimeout(function () {
  3   debugger;
debug>

console

% node debug myscript.js
< debugger listening on port 5858
connecting... ok
break in /home/indutny/Code/git/indutny/myscript.js:1
  1 x = 5;
  2 setTimeout(function () {
  3   debugger;
debug>

bash

$ node debug myscript.js
< debugger listening on port 5858
connecting... ok
break in /home/indutny/Code/git/indutny/myscript.js:1
  1 x = 5;
  2 setTimeout(function () {
  3   debugger;
debug> cont
< hello
break in /home/indutny/Code/git/indutny/myscript.js:3
  1 x = 5;
  2 setTimeout(function () {
  3   debugger;
  4   console.log('world');
  5 }, 1000);
debug> next
break in /home/indutny/Code/git/indutny/myscript.js:4
  2 setTimeout(function () {
  3   debugger;
  4   console.log('world');
  5 }, 1000);
  6 console.log('hello');
debug> repl
Press Ctrl + C to leave debug repl
> x
5
> 2+2
4
debug> next
< world
break in /home/indutny/Code/git/indutny/myscript.js:5
  3   debugger;
  4   console.log('world');
  5 }, 1000);
  6 console.log('hello');
  7
debug> quit
$

console

$ node debug myscript.js
< debugger listening on port 5858
connecting... ok
break in /home/indutny/Code/git/indutny/myscript.js:1
  1 x = 5;
  2 setTimeout(function () {
  3   debugger;
debug> cont
< hello
break in /home/indutny/Code/git/indutny/myscript.js:3
  1 x = 5;
  2 setTimeout(function () {
  3   debugger;
  4   console.log('world');
  5 }, 1000);
debug> next
break in /home/indutny/Code/git/indutny/myscript.js:4
  2 setTimeout(function () {
  3   debugger;
  4   console.log('world');
  5 }, 1000);
  6 console.log('hello');
debug> repl
Press Ctrl + C to leave debug repl
> x
5
> 2+2
4
debug> next
< world
break in /home/indutny/Code/git/indutny/myscript.js:5
  3   debugger;
  4   console.log('world');
  5 }, 1000);
  6 console.log('hello');
  7
debug> quit
$

I'd say we use plain ````` fences. None of bash, `console` or even `js` work well enough for REPL/debugger.

Your effort in this PR is greatly appreciated, however I think it's currently too big to properly review.

I think if this was split up into a separate PR for each markdown file, only changing the indentation and fencing, I would be good to merge it. The other miscellaneous things should also be split out to separate PRs.

separate PR for each markdown file

For the purpose of viewing all changes on GitHub, it should suffice to do one commit per file. And yeah, let's focus on getting the fencing done first and do additional changes that have been suggested in seperate PRs.

You could split to a commit for each file, but that still requires that each file is validated entirely before anything in the PR can be merged. By splitting it to separate PRs, more easily consumable chunks can be validated and merged in isolation. Either way works, but I feel like it might go smoother if there are separate PRs.

To keep things simple, I suggest eliminate "extra" changes (typo fixes) except the fencing from the current diff. We can then review it locally (curl -L https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/4733 | git show).

Okay. Will rebase, and make a third PR for it :) In the initial commit though, there are some things I corrected immediately because they were breaking markdown rendering on GitHub and Editors. I'd like to leave them in.

I stand corrected. Checking out from master left me with lots of merge conflicts. Could we agree on landing this by rebasing the commits you can easily apply and afterwards let me cherry-pick the changes?

@Qard, @silverwind I know it's churn. But the idea was to have churn in just one PR instead of three. Rod was right though, that especially renaming needs consensus and therefore needs to be separated. Anyhow the first commit (just plain code blocks) is probably as hard to review as the whole PR with all the changes. :)

Thanks! Landed in e436272. Feel free to follow up with more changes that were discussed here.

There are a number of changes to docs that have not yet landed that need to be back ported. Once those land this commit will likely have to be manually backported to LTS

Aside: (don't wanna make this sound like an advertisement but it's actually useful)
There are PRs recently containing a lot of changes. If you ever have problem reviewing the change, I recommend you guys trying https://github.com/stevemao/diff-so-fancy

@stevemao @silverwind had something similar with HTML output. In either form it's superuseful, thanks.

I tried it. Another good tool :)