Git uses asciidoc, tools/perf/Documentation uses asciidoc... It seems
a good fit for Documentation/. Is there any objection against it?
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:38:55 +0100 Diego Calleja wrote:
> Git uses asciidoc, tools/perf/Documentation uses asciidoc... It seems
> a good fit for Documentation/. Is there any objection against it?
> --
I think I'd like to see it, but I can only say for sure after
I see the results. OTOH, Matt Mackall didn't care for it the
last time that this was brought up.
---
~Randy
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 09:29:30AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:38:55 +0100 Diego Calleja wrote:
>
> > Git uses asciidoc, tools/perf/Documentation uses asciidoc... It seems
> > a good fit for Documentation/. Is there any objection against it?
> > --
>
> I think I'd like to see it, but I can only say for sure after
> I see the results. OTOH, Matt Mackall didn't care for it the
> last time that this was brought up.
Mercurial adopted asciidoc early on, and our experience with it wasn't
great - it had many difficult to work around quirks. We eventually
built our own parser for a subset of 'restructured text' to generate
our help messages and build our docs.
I think if we're going to go down a mark-up road for Documentation/,
we're going to need to roll our own tool and make it aware of
kerneldoc and so forth.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.