On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 10:11 PM Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 9:54 PM David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 5:23 PM Jonas Hahnfeld <hah...@hahnjo.de> wrote: > > >> > I would be interested in your feedback. > > >> > > >> Not having run any of this, my immediate response would that it's not > > >> running 'make doc' AFAICS. > > > > > > For changes to the code, it should be irrelevant to run make doc: the > > > regression test should cover all the behaviors we care about from a > > > programming perspective. > > > > It would be nice if you considered asking questions instead of just > > assuming that our established procedures do not make sense and are not > > actually rooted in any relevant experience. > > > > We had a considerable amount of documentation building failures due to > > "code-only" changes that "couldn't possibly" affect the doc build. To a > > good degree this is because the in-code documentation (like of > > properties, music functions and a whole bunch of stuff ending up in the > > Internals Reference) is run through various interpreters of Texinfo. > > I think we could and should run the documentation as part of the regtests.
I mean: we could and should compile the documentation that is generated from the code, ie properties, music functions, etc. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
