From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [217.216.95.84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5A363914EE for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2026 07:11:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788333076; cv=none; b=sy2xtPMX2HaWitgFS7KU6vkm/QlTynMZc+lehgUx36JccAw0zdP/yygdNDnZAfYzruypgDp91hYdeEDvn5XY57MwsIRHwR7ZgmDhhrHIQVMQKGK1dtmFq0MO3hLlDx+dwDScj6aZuxZvYOe7sl7u7L5z7iv1UGEw0tGWFiGluN4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788333076; c=relaxed/simple; bh=M46KZ5ZPzdgs0V0sfUOu/GjTGT2NCliQTnm0uTiwgJw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=FUpNjHpkGAVoyUDM2UxOo24z8GkdiYlh61QnIrg5MyXlkO/1YAU5znrRx/JRPAdpRXiqAyesbeq69wAgzb6TB4RZ2Q+YAoVOGjYsRt5xl0wKHWZNUiTzhdU9ZC6Pj4fYCntZAgGca9H7XvggZ+NDw84MDb9NqWAwDJDNBetqdIw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b=W9P5mXSX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b="W9P5mXSX" Received: (qmail 10133 invoked by uid 106); 2 Sep 2026 07:11:13 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=peff.net; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; s=20240930; bh=M46KZ5ZPzdgs0V0sfUOu/GjTGT2NCliQTnm0uTiwgJw=; b=W9P5mXSXjE/uTz9mQYTUZcpWLAGNoc07Efg+s/jmsHHzutmE4kSbMJM3e3X03OFnHtKklbEM4ca602QRoHvmvLSuYCmBQDZ5g3f7QbBdv6LRUYlx59av60C1S7UhGyS2CC4+qSt1I0UUqBU1Uq6mLkmtqgfvVPUdBOl03TpCDCp8K6qAyl5PqL64X9lo71XjFDPdrBkvvskONIsofHVc/jwfoS5eWPevq47+2qDKGdFkvldpRPZx58U/FlJ+G5DLLX5V7t9BpcqR9KwinftLJKs9I6/nnouE7kxiEXEH8XBHB8kchNVF2FPyRY+cAomke0cp6N5GgQYmKlsmrVz3iA== Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 Sep 2026 07:11:13 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 47466 invoked by uid 111); 2 Sep 2026 07:11:13 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 02 Sep 2026 03:11:13 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2026 03:11:13 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: Junio C Hamano , =?utf-8?Q?Jean-No=C3=ABl?= Avila , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH 0/2] bump ci asciidoctor version Message-ID: <20260902071113.GA70165@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20260901-b4-pks-ci-fix-documentation-job-v1-1-a8257ee2a9a4@pks.im> <20260901084737.GA2973751@coredump.intra.peff.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 12:41:12PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > But these days I'd guess everybody is using v2.0.x (which seems to work > > fine) for local builds. We probably ought to do the same in CI. If we > > have to catch issues in one, I'd rather it be the one people are likely > > to actually use. > > > It's possible that we could benefit from building with both in order to > > support the older version. But given its age I doubt it's worth it. We > > can still take bug fixes if somebody finds a problem, but we don't > > necessarily need to spend cycles building every commit with 1.5.8. > > I was wondering about whether I should bump its version while at it. In > fact, we could just install it from the Ubuntu sources nowadays, too. I > ultimately decided to not do that though and just fix the failing CI > pipeline for now, but I agree that it's something we might want to > follow up on. I think your fix kept to the minimum, which is good. I agree we should just install it from the system package manager. I _thought_ that might make your fix here obsolete, but we also install the concurrent-ruby gem. That comes from 974cdca345 (doc: introduce a synopsis typesetting, 2024-09-24) which also introduced some custom ruby code in asciidoctor extensions. But it's not clear to me why it's necessary (and I build the docs happily on my local system without it installed). +cc Jean-Noël for any wisdom. I guess installing asciidoctor from Ubuntu would also bring in ruby as a dependency. So I suppose it does make your patch obsolete, but it also doesn't hurt to be explicit that we expect "gem install" to work. Anyway, here is a fix for the version which can be applied on top of ps/ci-depends-on-ruby. -Peff