From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 220A220248 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:32:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727393AbfCTSce (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:32:34 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:51989 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727196AbfCTScd (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:32:33 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACD451383FE; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:32:31 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=date:from:to :cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=Tr4QBL7QvbNAx cOIHn4ZLg4/H0A=; b=XZoR8Sv83pqKnZhdAO5Ql1103citC59qg3k3vub0tWP0M B2/I/IQOQnlXgOt+/L3hhKOnYWfkQagDcRItuEQ3Yg+iBWbFlN0uzbj16hurLGYm ivrNgBomdzLQmbTl2wa/FlhB0Jv0ySR5HrNbee6LaOOaemMsO1gO6pcoRdxkoQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=date:from:to:cc :subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=UsTMfb7 uesfVoo7so9K8LyWLR0G+co5+Td3UGUYDHVxXQCsglFwlnNsDJhKIv6jR50pB7sU w41gfP3k/BblbA9i49DDdD5YJv7q3mt/UV9+zNk64KklilROYppgA0OVRWzhxu56 T5ynl+DxmVtoWYjEm9ARRMyfquJI8KNwAVPk= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A50F31383FD; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:32:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [71.173.194.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 24FED1383FC; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:32:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:32:29 -0400 From: Todd Zullinger To: Jeff King Cc: Martin =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C5gren?= , Git Mailing List , "brian m. carlson" Subject: Re: [PATCH] asciidoctor-extensions: provide `` Message-ID: <20190320183229.GK31362@pobox.com> References: <20190317144747.2418514-1-martin.agren@gmail.com> <20190319024645.GA6173@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190319033023.GA25772@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190319074321.GA2189@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190319074321.GA2189@sigill.intra.peff.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1 (2018-12-01) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 858E99E2-4B3E-11E9-8438-DF19F34BB12D-09356542!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 08:12:54AM +0100, Martin =C5gren wrote: >=20 >>> I just tried with asciidoc 2.0.0.rc.2, which came out last week. It d= oes >>> seem to work from the command line: >>> >>> $ make USE_ASCIIDOCTOR=3DYes \ >>> ASCIIDOC_DOCBOOK=3Ddocbook5 \ >>> ASCIIDOC=3D'asciidoctor -amansource=3DGit -amanmanual=3D"Git= Manual"' \ >>> git-add.xml >>> $ sed -n '/refmeta/,/refmeta/p' git-add.xml >>> >>> git-add >>> 1 >>> Git >>> Git Manual >>> >>=20 >> No such luck with asciidoctor 1.5.5. Seems like it really wants >> "manpage" before it considers these attributes. >>=20 >> (That's still me holding the tool, so factor that into it.) >=20 > The refmiscinfo stuff didn't arrive until asciidoctor v1.5.7. Now I don't feel as bad that I didn't find any good way to handle refmiscinfo when I first tried to use asciidoctor in November 2017 at least. This made me look closer at the fedora asciidoctor packages. They have been stuck on 1.5.6.1. So all my recent testing has been with 1.5.6.1. I spent some time yesterday working toward getting the fedora packages updated to 1.5.8. With luck that will reach the stable updates channels before too long. (I'm guessing the upcoming 2.0 release won't be suitable as an update for released fedora versions, being a major release with potentially backwards-incompatible changes.) There are differences in the output from 1.5.6.1 and 1.5.8, but I haven't looked closely yet. --=20 Todd