Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] travis-ci: build docs with asciidoctor
- From
Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 18, 2017, 08:32 UTC
- Message-ID
- <63CA5B3A-8AEA-473B-9F4C-86C2BBB0530F@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqq37dcorr7.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
Show 17 quoted lines
> On 14. Apr 2017, at 00:41, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > > Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com> writes: > >> this is a mini series to build the documentation with asciidoctor in >> addition to asciidoc on Travis-CI. > > Overall, this looks sensible. I didn't spot anything questionable > other than a minor style nit, i.e. write these > > make doc USE_ASCIIDOCTOR=1 > make -j2 doc USE_ASCIIDOCTOR=1 > > more like this > > make USE_ASCIIDOCTOR=1 doc > make -j2 USE_ASCIIDOCTOR=1 doc
OK! I'll change it and send a new round next week.
Show 10 quoted lines
> Having said that, I wonder if we get some interesting results out of > building the documentation twice, though. By looking at the Travis > log with timestamps, we probably can see how long each build takes, > but that is much less interesting than learning if new versions of > text used mark-up that does not format correctly on one or the other > (i.e. catch documentation breakage early in each CI run), for > example. I have an impression that neither AsciiDoc nor AsciiDoctor > "fails" in an obvious way that "make" can notice (i.e. they often > just silently produce nonsense output when fed a malformed input > instead).
True! But wouldn't we get a syntax check here? Wouldn't asciidoc / ascidoctor bark if we use wrong/unsupported elements?
In addition, we could push the resulting documentation somewhere. However, that would still require a human to look at it. Do you think that could have value?
Thanks, Lars