Re: GNOME 2 developer documentation

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org>]

On 07Oct2001 10:27PM (-0400), Owen Taylor wrote:
> 
> Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org> writes:
> 
> > On 07Oct2001 03:41PM (-0600), John Fleck wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 02:12:03PM -0700, Seth Nickell wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Just for reference, can you list the various modules in these categories
> > > > (by your count)?
> > > > 
> > > > -seth
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Sure. "API docs" means there's gtk-docs-generated API documentation in
> > > the package. It doesn't mean it's up-to-date. That's one of the things
> > > I'm trying to find out.
> > 
> > At one point we wanted to have an automated script that would generate
> > an API docs percent coverage table for all the GNOME2 modules. I think
> > this would be a really useful for getting all of them to 100%.
> 
> As soon as they go into the automated doc build on developer.gnome.org
> they will appear on:
> 
>  http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/status.shtml
> 
> Were you wanting something more than this?
> 

That looks exactly perfect, all it needs is the rest of the GNOME 2
modules added.

> I haven't tried to extend the doc building for the 2.0 platform
> beyond GTK+ yet, but assuming the module divisions, branch names
> (or lack of such) install locations, etc, have settled down
> now, it shouldn't be much of a problem.
> 
>                                         Owen
> 
> [
>  The gtk-doc patches that do this need a bit of updating - right now
>  They aren't counting functions that are missing from foo-sections.txt.
>  So the numbers are somewhat optimistic. The GLib 1003/1003 number
>  number is right, however. Many thanks to Matthias Clasen!
> ]

I noticed that it claims liboaf is at 100% even though there are
undocumented functions.

 - Maciej


_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers