On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 09:35:10PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote: > > > do also think it makes sense to first make the "softer" switch to > > > Asciidoctor-by-default and get that particular hurdle behind us. Then, > > > once we're ok with dropping AsciiDoc entirely, we can do the switch to > > > an Asciidoctor-only toolchain. > > > > Yeah, I do still like that as an endgame, but I like what you have here > > as an intermediate step in the right direction. > > Hmm, so this sounds like once I am happy with replacing AsciiDoc with > Asciidoctor 1(.5.5), I should rather not propose a series "let's default > to Asciidoctor!!!" but instead a slightly more careful "go with > Asciidoctor, but document that we work badly with v2 and that the 2nd > choice after Asciidoctor 1 should be AsciiDoc". Or do you see it > differently? (I wonder which Asciidoctor-version Junio would be on..)
Yeah, that seems reasonable. TBH, if making things in the middle step work turns out to be too hard, I'm not entirely opposed to a hard switch. The "does not work with 2.0" thing has to be a temporary step, though, I think, since using the older versions will get harder and harder as time goes on. I think it's OK to take such a temporary step as long as we understand where it leads (and presumably its to directly generating the roff with asciidoctor). The middle step of having asciidoctor+xmlto helps us understand and isolate which changes are responsible for which parts of the output. -Peff
