> On 14. Apr 2017, at 00:41, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> this is a mini series to build the documentation with asciidoctor in >> addition to asciidoc on Travis-CI. > > Overall, this looks sensible. I didn't spot anything questionable > other than a minor style nit, i.e. write these > > make doc USE_ASCIIDOCTOR=1 > make -j2 doc USE_ASCIIDOCTOR=1 > > more like this > > make USE_ASCIIDOCTOR=1 doc > make -j2 USE_ASCIIDOCTOR=1 doc OK! I'll change it and send a new round next week. > 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? In addition, we could push the resulting documentation somewhere. However, that would still require a human to look at it. Do you think that could have value? Thanks, Lars