> On 18. Apr 2017, at 12:44, brian m. carlson <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:32:59AM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: >> >>> On 14. Apr 2017, at 00:41, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> 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? > > Asciidoctor isn't very strict about questionable items. If you want > that behavior, you'd want to check for output to standard error during > the make process, as Asciidoctor uses Ruby's warn function. That sounds good. I'll check stderr in the next iteration! Thanks, Lars