Re: gtk+ documentation wikified



On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 12:03 +0200, Stefan Kost wrote:
> Maciej Piechotka schrieb:
> > On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 10:37 +0000, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> >   
> >> 2009/2/20 Maciej Piechotka <uzytkownik2 gmail com>:
> >>     
> >>> Eugene Gorodinsky <e gorodinsky gmail com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>       
> >>>> Hi all
> >>>>
> >>>> Since you guys are discussing the redesign of the gtk+ website, I'd
> >>>> like to propose an idea that I have. I've seen quite a lot of comments
> >>>> saying gtk+ documentation isn't as good as qt's. What do you think of
> >>>> having a wiki that documents all of gtk+ api?
> >>>>         
> >>> I'm not sure but I guess that it would be possible to integrate it
> >>> somehow with SVN(or, even better, git/bzr/...). The wiki syntax could be
> >>> translated into gtkdoc.
> >>>       
> >> Gtkdocs are stored in the source code headers,
> >>     
> >
> > BTW - this idea, which I personally like, is not common. Gtk-doc
> > comments are usually placed in source files. The exception is for
> > example webkit-gtk (or at least used to be).
> >
> >   
> >> that helps developers
> >> to keep documentation up to date.
> >> That means that pushing documentation upstream is not possible.
> >>
> >> What we could do is to have a queue of contributions/feedback and
> >> notify the module maintainer about it.
> >>
> >>     
> >
> > I never thought about pushing it into trunk directly. Next paragraph of my mail is:
> > "With svn: The developer/maintainer of wiki could download wiki syntax as
> > a patch, apply it and commit."
> >
> > And the merging usually is quite possible:
> > - Find symbol before which there is comment started by /** (or any other
> > - Insert the generated doc/update it/...
> > - Diff with previous
> > In some cases it will need to be handled manually - but I guess that in 99% it will not.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >   
> Hi,
> 

Hi. Sorry for delay in responding.

> I put some notes online:
> http://live.gnome.org/DocumentationProject/GtkDocFuture#head-a95d3540bfa9b29299058c0e13b162ce2a772da7
> Should the prototype submit patches to bugzilla?
> 
> subtasks that I could need help with:
> 1) start a basic cgi for library.gnome.org (if I do it its gonna be
> perl, but I don't care so much)
>   * have a hasmap there docmodule->sourcedir
>   * implements a fast way to get from symbol to docblob
>   * when calling edit.cgi?docmodule=glib&symbol=g_object_new
>      * show a textfield with the docs for it
> 
> 2) write a bugzilla_submit_patch function in for the above cgi (see link
> for how bugbuddy is doing it).
> 
> 3) build-brigade - anyone reading this? whats the chances of getting a
> doc-builder, where we could also run this cgi?
> 
> Stefan

I can help with the first task (although I'm afraid that I'm too
inexperienced to handle it on my own) or I can try to write something
for 2).

Regards

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]