On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 01:24:22PM +0200, Thomas Braun wrote: > Am 14.10.2014 um 11:51 schrieb Jeff King: > > What's the status on AsciiDoc versus AsciiDoctor? The latter seems more > > actively developed these days, but perhaps that is just my perception. > > The incompatibilities seem fairly minimal (if those first two patches > > are the extent of it, I have no problem at all trying to remain > > compatible with both). Would it ever make sense to switch to AsciiDoctor > > as our official command-line build program? I know it is supposed to be > > much faster (though a lot of the slowness in our build chain is due to > > docbook, not asciidoc itself). I don't think there's a lot of benefit for us to switch, and I say that being a contributor to Asciidoctor. It's useful to be able to build Git with both simply to find incompatibilities that we're going to need to fix anyway, due to the fact that Asciidoctor is used for the website. And yes, those first two patches are it, as far as I'm aware. > Just recently we added the AsciiDoc toolchain to our git-for-windows/sdk > (formerly known as msysgit). So I'm not really fond of switching now to > something different again. > > Remaining compatible with both would therefore be my choice. That's my goal. I simply wanted the ability to support both AsciiDoc and Asciidoctor without making major changes to the codebase. Hence, moving the calls into variables. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature