On Wed, 02 Dec 2015, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 03:33:43PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2015, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> > By popular demand.
>>
>> Unpopular if you ask me.
>>
>> Also, I think what you're trying to say is, use asciidoc the tool
>> instead of pand
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 03:33:43PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2015, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > By popular demand.
>
> Unpopular if you ask me.
>
> Also, I think what you're trying to say is, use asciidoc the tool
> instead of pandoc the tool, and as a side effect change the markup.
On Wed, 02 Dec 2015, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> By popular demand.
Unpopular if you ask me.
Also, I think what you're trying to say is, use asciidoc the tool
instead of pandoc the tool, and as a side effect change the markup. Or
even, use a tool written in one language instead of a tool written in
a
By popular demand.
This needs some adjustment/fixups after feeding snippets to asciidoc
since compared to markdown asciidown escapes xml markup and doesn't
just let it through.
The other noticeable change is that build times increase a lot - we
need to launch the markup process per-snippet, there
