Anders Kaseorg writes:
>> How bad does the documentation look with the patch applied (I know how
>> bad it looks without source-highlight installed)? If it is not too bad,
>> then it sounds like a sensible solution to drop the highlight markup
>> unconditionally like the patch that started th
On Mon, 19 May 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> If Ubuntu does not want to use highlight, it can apply a change like the
> patch in question as part of their fork to make the end result
> consistent and they are failing to do so.
Sure, Ubuntu can apply that patch, but the larger problem remains: if
Anders Kaseorg writes:
> Yes; when I noticed this failure, I asked Jonathan to add source-highlight
> as a build dependency in Debian (https://bugs.debian.org/745591). But
> then Ubuntu forked the packaging to revert this change
> (https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1316810), because source-high
On Sat, 17 May 2014, Jeremiah Mahler wrote:
> I agree that a broken document is an unacceptable failure mode.
>
> But I do not understand why 'source-highlight' is not an install
> requirement for 'git-doc'. If I install 'source-highlight' on
> my Debian machine the code looks great.
>
> apt-g
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 07:08:55AM -0400, Anders Kaseorg wrote:
> The highlighting was pretty, but unfortunately, the failure mode when
> source-highlight is not installed was that the entire code block
> disappears. See https://bugs.debian.org/745591,
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1316810.
>
The highlighting was pretty, but unfortunately, the failure mode when
source-highlight is not installed was that the entire code block
disappears. See https://bugs.debian.org/745591,
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1316810.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg
---
Documentation/technical/api-hashmap.t
6 matches
Mail list logo
