Enhancements to Configuration section of the Logging guide

[MichalMaler]

Fixing the badly rendered asciidoc markup that should provide an escape on used asterixes. In my local build, this worked perfectly fine, but for some reasons, it is not rendere as expected on Quarkus portal (main snapshot)

Bad asciidoc translation

Expected asciidoc translation

To fix this, I wanted to use pass:[] asciidoc macro that would allow me to use * in the backtick and render properly (no bold in the text, not escape macro leftovers). The \ and ++ escape approaches weren't rendered properly, so I used the pass[] macro as my last resort.
I also wanted to reword the sentence slightly and put it in a bullet list:

An example of a global configuration that applies for all categories:

* `quarkus.log.console.pass:c,a[*]`
* `quarkus.log.file.pass:c,a[*]`
* `quarkus.log.syslog.pass:c,a[*]`

However, after consulting this with SME, we agreed on removing these handlers examples completely and replace then with the contextually correct examples (root and per-category) that better fits the overall context of this chapter.

[Ladicek]

I don't have time to review new text. We need just the fix.

[MichalMaler]

Text is almost the same. I asked @jmartisk for a sanity check that I didn't change the meaning.

[Ladicek]

Then I'm leaving it to him.

[github-actions]

🙈 The PR is closed and the preview is expired.

[MichalMaler]

@jmartisk @cescoffier The GitHub Quarkus preview bot provides a nice and working asciidoc pass macro rendering.
Now I will apply the slight changes I talked with you over the googledoc.

[gsmet]

I second what @Ladicek said.

Please fix the reported issue and avoid changing the content in a way that requires a closer review.

I have no idea what you mean by quarkus.log.console.pass:c,a[*] and really this fix should be straightforward and shouldn't need an extensive review and discussions.

[MichalMaler]

I second what @Ladicek said.

Please fix the reported issue and avoid changing the content in a way that requires a closer review.

I have no idea what you mean by quarkus.log.console.pass:c,a[*] and really this fix should be straightforward and shouldn't need an extensive review and discussions.

It is already reviewed by @cescoffier and @jmartisk . What I am using is the simple Asciidoc escape macro that I am using when \ or ++ escapes doesnt work. And yes, I already tried them. All worked in my local build, but it was not working as expected when displayed on Quarkus main-snashot docs portal.

My second commit I already squashed solve this by different structure, thus the escape macro is not needed (since there is nothing to escape now).

This small PR is fixing the problem with badly rendered asciidoc escape and provide more value trough better examples.

@gsmet Please, dont block the progress of this PR to be merged and backported.

[geoand]

LGTM but I don't know much about Asciidoc so I'm not gonna dismiss the blocking review

[MichalMaler]

LGTM but I don't know much about Asciidoc so I'm not gonna dismiss the blocking review

The asciidoc passes are no longer needed, since I removed the whole text they were needed for.
If the content is OK, I dont see a reason for creating another PR in which I will be fixing asciidoc escapes for a content that is not good.

[geoand]

Yeah, I understand, but since this is not my field of expertise, I am not willing to dismiss concerns that others might have. If this were one of my things, I agreed with the change and I thought others concerns were either satisfied or not important enough to block the progress, I would dismiss the blocking review

[MichalMaler]

Creating this on the @gsmet request.
#35995

[gsmet]

@MichalMaler well, next time, please don't ask me for a review on Zulip then. I really have better things to do.

Let's stop wasting my time, please.

[MichalMaler]

@MichalMaler well, next time, please don't ask me for a review on Zulip then. I really have better things to do.

I will choose to answer in a slightly different tone. I kindly asked for your opinion 5 hours ago before creating this PR. An application of asciidoc macro that is visible in the code was something I wanted to discuss with you briefly.
Then, I asked Jan and Ladislav to review the content I composed with @cescoffier .
I didn't request your review on this PR (look yourself in the history), because I didn't want to request more of your time on this, and I took the silence on your part as a signal of your business, which I understand completely.

As you wish, I will not ask you for a review again.

Have a great day, G.