Junio C Hamano wrote: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > diff --git a/Documentation/Makefile b/Documentation/Makefile > > index a6ba5bd460..4721b000c1 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/Makefile > > +++ b/Documentation/Makefile > > @@ -150,8 +150,7 @@ ASCIIDOC_HTML = xhtml11 > > ASCIIDOC_DOCBOOK = docbook > > ASCIIDOC_CONF = -f asciidoc.conf > > ASCIIDOC_COMMON = $(ASCIIDOC) $(ASCIIDOC_EXTRA) $(ASCIIDOC_CONF) \ > > - -amanversion=$(GIT_VERSION) \ > > - -amanmanual='Git Manual' -amansource='Git' > > + -amanmanual='Git Manual' -amansource='Git $(GIT_VERSION)' > > ASCIIDOC_DEPS = asciidoc.conf GIT-ASCIIDOCFLAGS > > TXT_TO_HTML = $(ASCIIDOC_COMMON) -b $(ASCIIDOC_HTML) > > TXT_TO_XML = $(ASCIIDOC_COMMON) -b $(ASCIIDOC_DOCBOOK) > > Is this a complete patch, Yes it is complete. > or will this leave us in an incomplete in-between place? No. > We have some references to manversion in "git grep manversion > Documentation/" in asciidoc.conf and asciidoctor-extensions.rb > remaining after this ptach is applied, which presumably are no > longer used. I would imagine that these leftover references end up > substituting them with something benign, like an empty string, in > the output, but it somehow makes me feel dirty [*]. Passing an empty string has the same effect, because as it is explained in the commit message: DocBook Stylesheets simply join them *if* both are present (not empty). > Other than that, I like the simplification of requiring only two > pieces of information to convey the same information that we are > attempting to (and to some backends, failing to) give with three > pieces of information. Yes. > [Footnote] > > * If I am not guessing correctly how the result of applying this > patch works in the above "I would imagine ..." that led to my > possible misunderstanding of feeling "dirty", it would be a sign > that the proposed log message is not explaining sufficiently and > deserves an update. Even just saying "... and when they join the > `source` and `version`, if `version` is left empty or unspecified, > the resulting document would not show any extra whitespace. So it > is safe to do the joining ourselves and stuff the result in the > `source` field" or something would be sufficient, I would imagine, > in order to help the future readers of "git log" that there is no > need to "feel dirty" the same way I did. I don't know know what could give this impression, given that a link to the documentation and the link to the source code was given: if we have a Name and/or Version, use either or both of those, in the form "Name Version" or just "Name" or just "Version" https://github.com/docbook/xslt10-stylesheets/blob/master/xsl/common/refentry.xsl#L545 The code clearly tests for empty strings: test="not($Name = '') and not($Version = '') And it's not clear to me what else it would be checking for. asciidoc.py doesn't conditinally add this field: if manversion is not provided it just sets an empty field (if revnumber isn't provided either): <refmiscinfo class="version">{manversion={revnumber}}</refmiscinfo> If this works for programs that don't set manversion, why wouldn't it work for us? -- Felipe Contreras
