GNU bug report logs - #59789
29.0.50; admin/notes/tree-sitter/html-manual redundant?

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 59789 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 59789 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 29.0.50; admin/notes/tree-sitter/html-manual redundant?
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 16:09:20 -0800

Severity: wishlist

What's the purpose of the admin/notes/tree-sitter/html-manual directory?
The build-manual.sh script seems to just make an HTML export of the
elisp manual, and then copying a few HTML files in place.

I guess it's fine to provide that script, but doesn't it seem redundant
to keep those HTML files updated in git?  Is the idea to ship them with
our release tarball?  We don't do that for other features.

Message #8 received at 59789 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 59789 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#59789: 29.0.50; admin/notes/tree-sitter/html-manual redundant?
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 16:48:45 -0800

> On Dec 2, 2022, at 4:09 PM, Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Severity: wishlist
> 
> What's the purpose of the admin/notes/tree-sitter/html-manual directory?
> The build-manual.sh script seems to just make an HTML export of the
> elisp manual, and then copying a few HTML files in place.
> 
> I guess it's fine to provide that script, but doesn't it seem redundant
> to keep those HTML files updated in git?  Is the idea to ship them with
> our release tarball?  We don't do that for other features.
> 

That’s true, I just wanted to make it easy for the reader of the starter guide. I wouldn’t mind if we remove it and keep the build script.

Yuan

Message #11 received at 59789 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Cc: casouri <at> gmail.com, 59789 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#59789: 29.0.50; admin/notes/tree-sitter/html-manual redundant?
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2022 09:12:18 +0200

> Cc: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
> From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 16:09:20 -0800
> 
> Severity: wishlist
> 
> What's the purpose of the admin/notes/tree-sitter/html-manual directory?
> The build-manual.sh script seems to just make an HTML export of the
> elisp manual, and then copying a few HTML files in place.
> 
> I guess it's fine to provide that script, but doesn't it seem redundant
> to keep those HTML files updated in git?  Is the idea to ship them with
> our release tarball?  We don't do that for other features.

The intent is to remove that directory before we produce the first pretest.

Message #14 received at 59789 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: casouri <at> gmail.com, 59789 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#59789: 29.0.50; admin/notes/tree-sitter/html-manual redundant?
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2022 06:20:37 -0800

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

> The intent is to remove that directory before we produce the first pretest.

Thanks, so I think we can revisit this later.  I'm leaving the bug open
as a reminder, but I've also added this to my notes in a place where
I'll hopefully see it before preparing the pretest.

Message #17 received at 59789 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Cc: casouri <at> gmail.com, 59789 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#59789: 29.0.50; admin/notes/tree-sitter/html-manual redundant?
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2022 16:39:22 +0200

On December 3, 2022 4:20:37 PM GMT+02:00, Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > The intent is to remove that directory before we produce the first pretest.
> 
> Thanks, so I think we can revisit this later.  I'm leaving the bug open
> as a reminder, but I've also added this to my notes in a place where
> I'll hopefully see it before preparing the pretest.
> 

Thanks.

Message #24 received at 59789 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
To: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 59789 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#59789: 29.0.50; admin/notes/tree-sitter/html-manual redundant?
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2022 21:23:21 +0200

> I wouldn’t mind if we remove it and keep the build script.

When I tried to use the build script from admin/notes/tree-sitter/build-module
I noticed that it fails to build because it's out of sync
(misses necessary files) from https://github.com/casouri/tree-sitter-module
that works nicely.

Message #27 received at 59789 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
To: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
Cc: 59789 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, stefankangas <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#59789: 29.0.50; admin/notes/tree-sitter/html-manual redundant?
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 16:12:34 -0800

Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net> writes:

>> I wouldn’t mind if we remove it and keep the build script.
>
> When I tried to use the build script from admin/notes/tree-sitter/build-module
> I noticed that it fails to build because it's out of sync
> (misses necessary files) from https://github.com/casouri/tree-sitter-module
> that works nicely.

I worked on it a bit and now it should be good.

Yuan

Message #32 received at 59789-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: casouri <at> gmail.com, 59789-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#59789: 29.0.50; admin/notes/tree-sitter/html-manual redundant?
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 16:53:34 -0700

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

> On December 3, 2022 4:20:37 PM GMT+02:00, Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>>
>> > The intent is to remove that directory before we produce the first pretest.
>>
>> Thanks, so I think we can revisit this later.  I'm leaving the bug open
>> as a reminder, but I've also added this to my notes in a place where
>> I'll hopefully see it before preparing the pretest.
>>
>
> Thanks.

The file has been removed; closing.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.