For me, the posts underlines the argument that you’ll feel better if you stick to the tools or languages you know.
The $RET$ hack smells weird. Can you join the lines before flushing it down the markdown renderer?
Perhaps I woke up in the wrong mood, but I’d have praised the authors and community of the tool, it’s open-source, was built with generosity out of one’s own free time. That’s quite a capital!
So, we all know stuff gets abandoned, people do move on, perhaps they could handle handovers or sunsetting better, but let’s be first of all grateful.
For posterity, here is the passage:
> I started using Octopress back then and was still using it until today. In recent years I became frustrated with it since on every new system I had to install a version of Ruby that happened to work with Octopress, which wasn't always the case. When it did work, I started getting deprecation warnings from Ruby while compiling this blog. On top of this, Octopress seemed no longer maintained. The website says "Octopress 3.0 is Coming" but this announcement was from 2015 and the website hasn't been updated ever since. It felt like time to move on.
Octopress worked great for my blogging purposes and I'm grateful that it existed. However, in recent years I became frustrated with the experience of using it, which is probably due to a lack of my familiarity with the Ruby ecosystem.
Unfortunately this didn't work since it would also join lines in code snippets that contained []'s. This is a basic hack that prevented me from writing a more sophisticated markdown parser.
Considering you now have at least one input file where this sequence does appear organically (i.e. this blog post), I'm also curious how your setup is handling this correctly instead of mangling the content. What am I missing?