Re: Documentation Breakage at 2.5.6

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Dec 8, 2017, 22:29 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq4lp07t1k.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <002601d36ea8$ea80b160$bf821420$@nexbridge.com>

"Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@nexbridge.com> writes:

> One request to Junio: Would it be possible to tag the commits to
> align with the tags in the main repo? That way, I can build a nice
> little Jenkins job to automatically fetch the correct commit for
> man pages when packaging up a release.

Sorry, I missed this due to an overlong line in the message.

I am not interested in doing anything more than absolute minimum in the history that records generated cruft. We already describe the mainline commit object names in the messages; perhaps that is sufficient?

        commit daa88a54a985ed1ef258800c742223c2a8f0caaa
        Author: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
        Date:   Wed Dec 6 10:04:03 2017 -0800

            Autogenerated manpages for v2.15.1-354-g95ec6

        commit 466a3070abecf4081a12d8e07c770689506440b9
        Author: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
        Date:   Wed Nov 29 10:12:49 2017 +0900

            Autogenerated manpages for v2.15.1-271-g1a4e4

        commit be681f4100647ab93fd19cb5066fcaa2cb79204b
        Author: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
        Date:   Mon Nov 27 12:33:30 2017 +0900

            Autogenerated manpages for v2.15.0-374-g5f995

The primary reason why I do not want to tag them is because the tree the documentation sources were taken from is *not* the only thing that affects these autogenerated cruft. The AsciiDoc toolchain that happen to be installed on the box the day I ran the documentation tools is an obvious difference, and I do not want to make them appear any more definitive and official. "This is *the* manpage for release v2.15.1" is the message I do not want to give.