On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 04:06:48PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote:
> So of these steps:
>
> 0. Get Asciidoctor (v1) in shape.
>
> 1. Switch the default to Asciidoctor (v1).
>
> 2. Drop AsciiDoc to have faster Asciidoctor-processing, avoid xmlto
> and support Asciidoctor 2. And to avoid th
On 2019-09-07 at 04:40:22, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 11:29:47PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> > I'll look into this. I requested the upgrade in sid.
> >
> > If it's the lack of DocBook 4.5 support, then I'll probably need to
> > patch xmlto for that. DocBook 5 has been around
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 08:45, Jeff King wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 09:35:10PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote:
>
> > > 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 wit
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 A
On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 11:29:47PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> On 2019-09-04 at 03:26:10, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 08:51:19PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote:
> > > When I posted v1, it turned into quite a thread [1] on AsciiDoc vs
> > > Asciidoctor vs Asciidoctor 2.0 and differ
On 2019-09-04 at 03:26:10, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 08:51:19PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote:
> > When I posted v1, it turned into quite a thread [1] on AsciiDoc vs
> > Asciidoctor vs Asciidoctor 2.0 and differences in rendering. (I am on
> > Asciidoctor 1.5.5.)
>
> Yes, sadly I stil
On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 05:26, Jeff King wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 08:51:19PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote:
>
> > When I posted v1, it turned into quite a thread [1] on AsciiDoc vs
> > Asciidoctor vs Asciidoctor 2.0 and differences in rendering. (I am on
> > Asciidoctor 1.5.5.)
>
> Yes, sadly
On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 01:16, brian m. carlson
wrote:
>
> I looked at this series and it seems sane. I agree that adding a
> dependency on nokogiri isn't really desirable. It is an extremely
> common Ruby package, but it has native extensions, which causes problems
> for some people if their dist
On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 08:51:19PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote:
> Almost half a year ago, I wrote:
> > To be clear. *This* patch has a sufficiently incorrect commit message
> > that it really needs a makeover. You can expect a v2.
>
> Finally, here's that v2. I should probably refresh memories: The
On 2019-09-03 at 18:51:19, Martin Ågren wrote:
> Almost half a year ago, I wrote:
> > To be clear. *This* patch has a sufficiently incorrect commit message
> > that it really needs a makeover. You can expect a v2.
>
> Finally, here's that v2. I should probably refresh memories: The goal of
> the m
Almost half a year ago, I wrote:
> To be clear. *This* patch has a sufficiently incorrect commit message
> that it really needs a makeover. You can expect a v2.
Finally, here's that v2. I should probably refresh memories: The goal of
the main patch here is to make the headers and footers of our ma
11 matches
Mail list logo
