Re: [PATCH 2/2] ci: use system asciidoctor

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 11:59:38AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 05:01:46AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 09:55:49AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> > 
> > > One thing that we might have to worry about is compatibility with _old_
> > > versions of asciidoctor. Now that we're using a more modern version of
> > > it we might start relying on features that weren't available in older
> > > versions, and we wouldn't notice anymore. So we kind of have the reverse
> > > problem now.
> > 
> > Right, this is the "we could in theory check both" path I mentioned
> > earlier.
> > 
> > v1.5.8 is sufficiently old that I don't think we need to care anymore.
> > We can still take bug reports if somebody happens to use it and finds a
> > problem. Checking other older versions isn't likely to be that
> > interesting (the next version after 1.5.8 is 2.0.0, which had a higher
> > than usual chance of breaking things).
> 
> Yeah, I agree. We can still reconsider if we ever hit a scenario where
> it caused problems after all.

BTW, after having dug into Debian versioning for another patch this
morning, I bothered to look at which asciidoctors they ship. Even Debian
11, which just went out of LTS, was on asciidoctor 2.x. Ditto for RHEL8,
which has a 10-year cycle (it hasn't been 10 years since asciidoctor
2.0.0, but it luckily was released in the right part of the cycle).

I don't think that changes our conclusions. Just adding a little bit of
research for posterity.

-Peff