On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 11:56, Gerald Pfeifer <ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Jun 2020, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote: > > The libstdc++ manual is written in Docbook XML, but we commit both the > > XML and generated HTML pages to Git. Sometimes a small XML file can > > result in dozens of mechanical changes to the generated HTML files, > > which we record in the ChangeLog as: > > > > * doc/html/*: Regenerated. > > > > With the new checks we need to name every generated file individually. > > > > If we add that directory to the ignored_prefixes list, we won't need > > to name them. But then the doc/html/* entry will give an error, and > > changes to the HTML files can be committed without any ChangeLog > > entry. Should we just stop mentioning the HTML in the ChangeLog? > > > > We could do something like the attached patch, but it seems overkill > > for this one special case. > > The change makes sense, but indeed it feels like a very specialized > case in a general script.
Yes, that was my thought too. > Thinking out of the box (and admittedly with a dose of igorance, which > means I am likely missing something): Is not keeping the libstdc++/doc > HTML in Git a viable option? Only creating that HTML as part of releases > and maybe snapshots? It gets sync'd to https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++ nightly. We could generate it nightly, but we'd need all the docbook stylesheets etc. on sourceware. Or we could just generate it for snapshots (which would still need the docbook stuff on the server) and only sync the onlinedocs weekly from the snapshot.
