Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] asciidoctor-extensions: provide `<refmiscinfo/>`

From: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 5, 2019, 19:35 UTC
Message-ID: <CAN0heSpbRvNG9okz5pqkHqDMB2BM5T+FzAbaK3sVwzGC6fjpPA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190904032609.GD28836@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 05:26, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

>
> 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 still can't format the docs at all with 2.0.10 (which is
> what ships in Debian unstable).
>
> > 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..)

Martin