Re: Release Notes: Markdown to replace QBK

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-02-17 20:23:46

On 2/17/23 23:14, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
> On 17/02/2023 19:40, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
>> Vinnie Falco wrote:
>>> We need to re-render all of this historical release notes, such as:
>>>
>>> <https://www.boost.org/users/history/version_1_81_0.html>
>>>
>>> to be in the style of the new website. This is being taken care of, but it will
>>> affect the release process as follows:
>>>
>>> * Each author will edit the release notes for their library using markdown
>>> instead of Quickbook format, as a pull request against a file
>>> here:
>>>
>>> <https://github.com/boostorg/website/tree/master/feed/history>
>>>
>>> The syntax will be GitHub flavored markdown, with a few Boost-specific
>>> extensions (for example, to link against an issue in a boostorg repo).
>>>
>>> Does anyone object or have comments about this?
>>
>> The pull request workflow isn't very elegant. It would be better if, say,
>> every author updates meta/release_notes.md in his repo, and the website
>> automatically compiles these (as it currently does for meta/libraries.json).
> 
> I and undoubtedly others already keep their release notes in a markdown 
> file to please github, but it doesn't live in meta/ nor is it going to.

I certainly don't, and I don't see many (any?) Boost libraries
maintaining docs in Markdown.

I'm not going to convert any in-library release notes I maintain to
Markdown. I currently have to convert HTML to QuickBook for Filesystem,
and this isn't fun. I'm not going to do this for every library now. And
I sure won't ever convert docs to Markdown either.