On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 01:18:36AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > and even today still does not seem to handle manversion. > > Why do we need `manversion`? > > All that it's used for is in the DocBook Stylesheets to join the > source name and the version, even its own documentation explains what > it looks like in practice [3]: > > In practice, there are many pages that simply have a version number > in the "source" field. So, it looks like what we have is a two-part > field, Name Version > > So if we have `source="Git"`, and `version="2.4.0"`, we can just have > `source="Git 2.40.0"`. > > Why do we have to split that information only for the DocBook > Stylesheets to join it in? I don't know of any particular reason why we couldn't put both in the source field. I had forgotten we discussed this 2 years ago. > > Aside: If we think asciidoctor 1.5.7 is recent enough to rely on, then > > we might want to simplify our hack to just output manversion. > > There is no need for any hack: we can just set the "mansource" > attribute to "Git $(GIT_VERSION)", and everything will work correctly > for both asciidoc and asciidoctor in all backends. > > Why do we insist on hacks for asciidoc.py/2007 and asciidoc|docbook5/2017? > > Especially when I sent the fix for *everything* in 2021 [4]. You say "insist" like somebody is arguing for it. It looks like the series you linked got some review comments, and you followed-up. I didn't carefully read the re-rolls (then or now), but the original patches seem like a good direction to me. Looking at the timing in the archive, I suspect that inter-personal drama in other threads caused people not to read those re-rolls. At any rate, I don't think any of that needs to hold up this patch, which is not touching the asciidoctor side at all (I only wondered while reviewing it what the implications might be). -Peff
