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: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E711F5AE for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:39:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233694AbhGWG6x (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 02:58:53 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:55418 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233763AbhGWG6w (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 02:58:52 -0400 Received: (qmail 10234 invoked by uid 109); 23 Jul 2021 07:39:25 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:39:25 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 22962 invoked by uid 111); 23 Jul 2021 07:39:27 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 03:39:27 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 03:39:25 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Taylor Blau Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, dstolee@microsoft.com, gitster@pobox.com, jonathantanmy@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/24] Documentation: build 'technical/bitmap-format' by default Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 01:23:34PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > I don't know if it's better to have a poorly-formatted HTML file, or > > none at all. :) > > > > Personally, I would just read the source. And I have a slight concern > > that if we start "cleaning it up" to render as asciidoc, the source > > might end up a lot less readable (though I'd reserve judgement until > > actually seeing it). > > Yeah, the actual source is pretty readable (and it's what I had been > looking at, although it is sometimes convenient to have a version I can > read in my web browser). But it's definitely not good Asciidoc. > > I briefly considered cleaning it up, but decided against it. Usually I > would opt to clean it up, but this series is already so large that I > figured it would make a negative impact on the reviewer experience to > read a clean-up patch here. > > I wouldn't be opposed to coming back to it in the future, once the dust > settles. I guess we can consider this #leftoverbits until then. Yeah, I definitely don't want to see that cleanup as a dependency for this series. It's already long enough as it is. Coming back to it later is just fine with me. The question here is: should we continue to omit it from the html build, since it does not render well (i.e., should we simply drop this patch). -Peff