Re: [PATCH v2 04/24] Documentation: build 'technical/bitmap-format' by default

> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 05:58:41AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 06:25:07PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
> >
> > > Even though the 'TECH_DOCS' variable was introduced all the way back in
> > > 5e00439f0a (Documentation: build html for all files in technical and
> > > howto, 2012-10-23), the 'bitmap-format' document was never added to that
> > > list when it was created.
> > >
> > > Prepare for changes to this file by including it in the list of
> > > technical documentation that 'make doc' will build by default.
> >
> > OK. I don't care that much about being able to format this as html, but
> > I agree it's good to be consistent with the other stuff in technical/.
> >
> > The big question is whether it looks OK rendered by asciidoc, and the
> > answer seems to be "yes" (from a cursory look I gave it).
>
> Actually, I take it back. After looking more carefully, it renders quite
> poorly. There's a lot of structural indentation that ends up being
> confused as code blocks.
>
> I don't know if it's better to have a poorly-formatted HTML file, or
> none at all. :)
>
> Personally, I would just read the source. And I have a slight concern
> that if we start "cleaning it up" to render as asciidoc, the source
> might end up a lot less readable (though I'd reserve judgement until
> actually seeing it).