On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:32:59AM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: > > > On 14. Apr 2017, at 00:41, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> 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. One of the things I've wanted to do is to make it able to be strict, but that requires a lot of refactoring work that I just haven't gotten around to. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | https://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
