From: Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:03:50 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] travis-ci: build docs with asciidoctor
Message-ID: <D9F45212-91F7-4BB1-A0EC-74A84DA81860@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170418104411.hdkzh3psvej63tqw@genre.crustytoothpaste.net>


> On 18. Apr 2017, at 12:44, brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:32:59AM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote:
>> 
>>> On 14. Apr 2017, at 00:41, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> 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?
> 
> Asciidoctor isn't very strict about questionable items.  If you want
> that behavior, you'd want to check for output to standard error during
> the make process, as Asciidoctor uses Ruby's warn function.

That sounds good. I'll check stderr in the next iteration!

Thanks,
Lars