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