On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 06:30:00PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:19:26PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 04:35:44PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 02:28:55PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > >
> > > > > The need for
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:19:26PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 04:35:44PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 02:28:55PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >
> > > > The need for the extensions could be replaced with a small amount of
> > > > Ruby
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 04:35:44PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 02:28:55PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > > The need for the extensions could be replaced with a small amount of
> > > Ruby code, if that's considered desirable. Previous opinions on doing
> > > so were
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 02:28:55PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > The need for the extensions could be replaced with a small amount of
> > Ruby code, if that's considered desirable. Previous opinions on doing
> > so were negative, however.
>
> Quite frankly, it is annoying to be forced
Hi Brian,
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017, brian m. carlson wrote:
> There are two major processors of AsciiDoc: AsciiDoc itself, and
> Asciidoctor. Both have advantages and disadvantages, but traditionally
> the documentation has been built with AsciiDoc, leading to some
> surprising breakage when
"brian m. carlson" writes:
> There are two major processors of AsciiDoc: AsciiDoc itself, and Asciidoctor.
> Both have advantages and disadvantages, but traditionally the documentation
> has
> been built with AsciiDoc, leading to some surprising breakage when
There are two major processors of AsciiDoc: AsciiDoc itself, and Asciidoctor.
Both have advantages and disadvantages, but traditionally the documentation has
been built with AsciiDoc, leading to some surprising breakage when building with
Asciidoctor. Partially, this is due to the need to specify
7 matches
Mail list logo