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

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Subject: bug#59789: closed (Re: bug#59789: 29.0.50; admin/notes/tree-sitter/html-manual
 redundant?)
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2023 23:54:01 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your bug report

#59789: 29.0.50; admin/notes/tree-sitter/html-manual redundant?

which was filed against the emacs package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to 59789 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

-- 
59789: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=59789
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

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.

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

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.

Previous Next

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