> On 04 Jan 2017, at 09:08, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 05:03:57PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > >> From: =?UTF-8?q?=EB=A7=88=EB=88=84=EC=97=98?= <nalla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> The `user-manual.txt` is designed as a `book` but the `Makefile` wants >> to build it as an `article`. This seems to be a problem when building >> the documentation with `asciidoctor`. Furthermore the parts *Git >> Glossary* and *Appendix B* had no subsections which is not allowed when >> building with `asciidoctor`. So lets add a *dummy* section. > > The git-scm.com site uses asciidoctor, too, and I think I have seen some > oddness with the rendering though. So in general I am in favor of making > things work under both asciidoc and asciidoctor. I am not familiar with both tools but it sounds to me as if "asciidoctor" is kind of the "lowest common denominator". Is this true? If yes, would it make sense to switch TravisCI [1] to asciidocter if this change gets merged? - Lars [1] https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/.travis.yml#L48